Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, and I just wonder about the responsibility of this legislation. To have the government promote these items that are on the schedule, things like MDMA, the pure form of Molly and meth, is that what we want? We want the Federal Government telling our families and our children: ``Take this. It is good for you''? Maybe it is, but I sure don't think it is. I certainly don't want my kids taking it, and I certainly don't want the government promoting it. Essentially, my whole life was smoking cessation of tobacco. Now we are finally at a place where we have reduced that dramatically, and now we are going to tell the whole rest of the country, well, let's all start smoking marijuana instead. I don't think this is what the government should be promoting, and I think we should have a lot more research before we tell our kids that this is what they should be doing.

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

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, with record numbers of people coming across our border illegally, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 3056, an emergency supplemental to provide critically needed funding for the humanitarian crisis at the border, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Madam Speaker, today I am in support of this resolution on the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, and I thank Representative McGovern and Representative Smith for their leadership on this resolution, which serves to remember the victims of the violence and suppression of democracy protest in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and calls on the current Communist Government of China to respect the universally recognized human rights of all people living in China and around the world. I just remember as a young man watching this--as probably many of the people do--whole thing unfold on our television sets. We were rooting for these people yearning to be free, and the man standing in front of the tank. It is just emblazoned in our minds. Thirty years ago in the spring of 1989, thousands of Chinese students began staging peaceful protests for democratic reforms in China. They were asking their Communist government for rights that are fundamental to any democracy, including: freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the elimination of official corruption. They were asking for rights and freedoms that we enjoy in the United States, but the Chinese citizens were being denied then, and believe it or not, are still being denied today. Regardless of what we see on television, regardless of what we might think because it says, ``made in China,'' things are different in China. When faced with the growing and intensifying peaceful protests, the Communist leaders in 1989 chose a violent and authoritarian response, and then lied about it and acted like it didn't happen. They chose to declare martial law and to intensify their use of authoritarian tactics to oppress and control the people of China, culminating in the events in Tiananmen Square. On June 4, 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers in armored columns of tanks outside Tiananmen Square fired directly at Chinese citizens and indiscriminately at crowds in Beijing, inflicting high civilian casualties. These were unarmed crowds, Madam Speaker, fired upon. To this day, we still don't know how many civilians were killed that day. Estimates range from hundreds to a few thousand and we can say with confidence that thousands more civilians were wounded on June 4 and even a greater number were arrested for taking part in these protests. We are here today to honor those who were lost and affected by the violent, authoritarian suppression of the Chinese Communist Government in 1989, and to call for an end to China's current, continued authoritarian suppression. Unfortunately, parallels can be drawn between the Chinese Government that perpetrated the Tiananmen Square massacre and the current regime of President Xi and the Communist Party. In China today, there is official government repression of freedom of speech, religion, movement, association, and assembly. We know at least 1 million, and some estimate up to 3 million Chinese Muslims are forcibly interned in detention camps designed to erase their religious and ethnic identities. This is something out of the 1930s and the 1940s that the world said would never happen again. It is happening right now. The Communist government has deployed tens of millions of evasive high-tech surveillance cameras throughout the country to monitor the general public. The cameras and other forms of surveillance are used to intimidate political dissidents, religious leaders and adherents, and minority groups. In the Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas, the Communist government has installed surveillance cameras in monasteries. Tibetans also face the monitoring and disruption of telephone and internet communications. And this is absolutely just the beginning with the establishment of the system of social credits. The State Department's 2018 Report on Human Rights Practices in China has a long list of human rights abuses by the Chinese Communist Government, to include: Unlawful killings by the government; forced disappearances by the government; torture; arbitrary detention; political imprisonment; arbitrary interference with privacy; physical attacks on and criminal prosecution of journalists, lawyers, writers, bloggers, dissidents, petitioners, and their family members; interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; as well as severe restrictions on religious freedoms. I hope we can take an opportunity today to honor the victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, highlighting that the Chinese people still know very little about what transpired that night. I also hope we can have a continued conversation about the current Communist Chinese Party's authoritarian and oppressive tactics that are continuing to violate the basic human rights of the Chinese people, and I hope this is just the beginning of the conversation. China is a clear and present danger. They have been in an economic war, and information war. They have been at war with the West, and particularly the United States, for the last several decades, and it is high time that the American people wake up. This should just be the beginning. I thank the makers of this resolution for doing so, but I hope it is just the beginning of the conversation, but more than the conversation, the concrete actions that we take against China's aggressive and authoritarian actions, not only to their own people, but to the rest of the world, including the United States. I hope that we not only support this President and this administration when he does the right thing, taking a hard stance against China, but that this Congress will take the lead on concrete actions regarding China's malevolent behavior around the world, but particularly in China, with their markets, with dumping on American markets, with intellectual property theft, and the list goes on and on.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H. Res. 106, which condemns female genital mutilation, or cutting, as a violation of the human rights of women and girls and calls for a coordinated response from the United States Government and the international community to end this horrific and abhorrent practice. I am proud of the bipartisan effort that has gone into this resolution, and I want to thank Representative Lois Frankel from Florida for coleading this resolution with me, which gives us the opportunity to bring renewed attention to the harm that FGM causes innocent girls and highlights the actions needed to eliminate this unspeakable act. As the House considers this resolution, there are over 200 million women and girls alive today who have been affected by FGM. This year alone, an estimated 3 million girls are at risk of being mutilated. This despicable practice simply must end. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort to condemn and end FGM in the United States and across the globe. There is much more work that must be done to combat FGM, and I hope that we continue this bipartisan work.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 218 and ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 219.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for hosting this Special Order tonight on China. I was watching the news today like most other folks are, and part of the news says that the tariffs are the problem and the President is the problem. That is what they are literally saying in the United States of America today. Ladies and gentlemen, the tariffs aren't the problem and the President isn't the problem. China is the problem. They have been the problem for a long time, but nobody in the United States has been willing to confront it. For many years, China has pursued industrial policies and unfair trade practices that include dumping, discriminatory nontariff barriers, forced technology transfer, overcapacity, and industrial subsidies, all this to champion Chinese firms and make it literally impossible for American firms to compete. People say: Well, all these jobs went to China. All these jobs went overseas. How do you think that happened? It happened because China is not a reasonable actor. They are not playing fair. They have not been playing fair, and they have been taking advantage of the United States and other countries for a very, very long time. Finally, there is a President who is willing to confront them. Let's talk about China as the world's largest principal IP infringer, and their government actually encourages the theft of intellectual property. People talk about the value of these tariffs. Nobody likes the tariffs in the United States. We don't want to have to do this, but we have limited options. They said the cost of the tariffs. Well, how about the cost, annually, of IP theft, anywhere from $225 billion to $600 billion, including counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets. That is every year, regardless of any tariff in the United States. That is just what the Chinese steal, sanctioned by the Chinese Government. Our IP-intensive industries support at least 45 million U.S. jobs. Are we going to wait until all those head to China as well? For every high-tech job in the United States, five jobs are created indirectly in a local economy. Actually, China accounts for 87 percent of counterfeit goods seized coming into the United States. It starts making you wonder why we allow any of their goods to come into the United States. China conducts and supports cyber intrusions into the United States' computer networks to gain access to valuable research and business information so Chinese companies can just literally copy products and processes. What are some examples? Well, just things like a vacuum cleaner to solar panel technology. Does anybody wonder why we buy so many solar panels from China? They stole them from us, and then they are selling them back to us. Who is the fool here? And how about the blueprints to the Boeing C-17? Anybody deployed around the world lately in military uniform? It is good to know that China has the plans. Hackers from China with ties to the government have been accused of breaking into gas companies, steel companies, and chemical companies. A Chinese Government company was indicted for stealing the secret chemical makeup of the color white from DuPont. China developed its J-20 fighter plane, a plane similar to Lockheed- Martin's F-22 Raptor, shortly after a Chinese national was indicted for stealing technical data from Lockheed-Martin, including plans for the Raptor. In 2010, Google went public in announcing that it had been hacked by the Chinese Government; and in December of 2018, two Chinese nationals were charged with hacking more than 45 companies in coordination with China's state security service. These are just a few of the cases. Just a couple of months ago, in The Wall Street Journal, it was reported that 27 universities located across the United States were targeted by Chinese hackers due to their involvement in research of military-use maritime technology. You heard some of the speakers just recently talk about China's newfound military and naval prowess. Let's go into some of the CFIUS reports, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. CFIUS ordered a Chinese health data analytics firm backed by Tencent to sell its majority stake in PatientsLikeMe, which helps connect people suffering from the same illness. Why would China hack that, you wonder? Well, if you can think about any data that you have--your very, very personal data, including sicknesses that you might have--China actually wants that kind of stuff, and they don't have good intentions for it. CFIUS blocked the $1.2 billion purchase of MoneyGram, a money transfer firm, by Ant Financial, an Alibaba affiliate, on national security grounds. In 2017, American officials warned that DJI, a leading drone maker, was probably sending data on critical infrastructure back to China's Government. The U.S. Army barred DJI drones from its bases. But if you don't know you have a DJI drone and you are operating on a military base, you can probably be self-assured that China is collecting the information and you are actually helping them. How about this? In 2018, American Government agencies were banned from using cameras made by Hikvision, the world's biggest manufacturer of closed-circuit TV kits. We actually had to ban them, and the government was buying them. They are spying on us in our own government buildings because we are buying their cameras, and we know it is happening. It is incredible, ladies and gentlemen. China is the problem. It is not the President and it is not the tariff. It is what China does. Then there is the race to 5G, which America must win. China is on pace to be the global leader in 5G technology. That is just how it is. They actually beat Ericsson, and now a spy state--a spy state--is on track to be the leader in 5G technology. We simply must work with our allies to stop the introduction of Huawei equipment--that is who is making it--into foreign networks. It threatens the integrity of personal data, government secrets, military operations, and democratic principles. When the United States military operates around the world, we use the backbone architecture oftentimes to communicate. If that backbone communications architecture has been made by Huawei, we might as well just be telling China exactly what we are doing. Our tactic, technique, procedures are all given up immediately to China. Social media, medical services, gaming, location services, payment, and banking information, every single thing that happens over the internet, if it is happening over a Huawei 5G network, they are knowing about it. The Pentagon, just last month, warned of ``near persistent data transfer back to China.'' Near persistent, so just continuous data transfer. And they use this information to coerce and punish not only their own citizens, but people in countries around the world. And again, the 2017 intelligence law in China requires any organization or citizen to support, assist, and cooperate with the security services of China's communist government. Now, let's be clear here. We are not talking about the Chinese people, but we are talking about the Communist Party in China. We are talking about their leadership, and we are talking about their government. That is who we are talking about there. Again, the Chinese dominance in 5G threatens future U.S. military operations. We will not be able to operate. We will have to set up our own network everywhere we go where Huawei is responsible for 5G networking. These are just national security risks that happen in Europe and across Africa. You need to know, as well, that Huawei's equipment does not interoperate with any other vendor. So if you are using Huawei equipment, even if it is 4G, it doesn't interoperate with anything, so you are forced to buy Huawei for 5G if you want to advance. Other people have talked about China's global influence--unrestricted warfare--in every single paradigm. Ladies and gentlemen, the tariffs are not the problem. Unfortunately, China has been in an economic war with us for about four decades. The President is not the problem. China and this malign behavior to us and democracies around the globe are the problem. I am glad we are finally talking about it. I hope that the rest of our colleagues here in the House of Representatives will join us in researching and becoming aware and informed about China's activities and then supporting policies that deal with China's malign activities in our universities, technology transfer, and--you name it.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and could not get to the floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 172, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 173, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 174.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize VFIS, a division of Glatfelter Insurance Group, as it celebrates 50 years of dedicated service to our Nation's fire and emergency services. Formerly known as Volunteer Firemen's Insurance Services, VFIS was established by the late Arthur J. Glatfelter of York, Pennsylvania. A Veteran of World War II, Mr. Glatfelter was a U.S. Marine who served in the Pacific. The values the Corps instilled in him to serve our Country guided Mr. Glatfelter throughout his professional career in supporting the men and women of our Nation's fire and emergency service. In 1969, Mr. Glatfelter, a well-established insurance agent, recognized a need for specialized insurance coverage for firefighters-- a coverage based on their motivations, their aspirations, their needs and the risks they were willing to assume to protect others. He designed a portfolio of comprehensive insurance coverages that took all of these factors into account. Fifty years later, these specialized coverages remain the cornerstone on which VFIS has based its insurance program for the fire service. VFIS is now the leading insurance provider for emergency services organizations in the Nation. These organizations include fire departments, ambulance services, rescue squads, 911 dispatch centers and more. VFIS also provides an array of consulting services and training programs focused on the operations of these organizations. Aligned with the VFIS insurance program, they are designed to safeguard our firefighters in their duties. The values that defined Mr. Glatfelter remain embedded in the VFIS culture. Current VFIS staff and key agents have over 1,000 years of emergency services experiences, representing a significant level of giving back to their communities. Many VFIS senior executives are involved in organizations that support first responders--organizations such as the Congressional Fire Services Institute, National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, National Volunteer Fire Council, the National EMS Management Foundation and the International Association of Fire Chiefs' Foundation. On April 27, 2019, VFIS will conduct a 50th Anniversary gathering to celebrate this significant milestone. The high standard of protection and service that VFIS has provided in supporting our Nation's fire and emergency services for 50 years is a milestone worthy of national recognition. In 1969, Mr. Glatfelter pursued an idea to develop the best insurance program possible to protect our nation's fire and emergency service providers. Fifty years later, VFIS is the number one provider of insurance and risk management services to fire and emergency service organizations in the U.S. I hereby recognize VFIS for its 50 years of dedication and commitment to serving those who serve and protect our communities and thank Arthur J. Glatfelter for his vision and leadership in developing the VFIS Program. Congratulations to VFIS on celebrating 50 years of dedicated service.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, today I recognize and celebrate Mr. D. Scott Karns, a dedicated husband, father, grandfather, mentor, business owner and community leader from Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. After graduating from Messiah College with a B.S. in Business Administration, Mr. Karns joined his father, David, at the family grocery business, Karns Quality Foods, in 1977. Upon joining the company, Scott began learning every facet of the business, and in 1989, he succeeded his father as Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Karns takes great pride in operating Karns Quality Foods with his family, which has grown to eight stores in Central Pennsylvania that total over 370,000 square feet, employs over 1,200 associates, and serves 100,000 customers each week. Mr. Karns and his team have capitalized on the advantages of a locally-owned and -operated business by catering directly to their customers' needs and requests. Their hard work and dedication has resulted in Karns Quality Foods recognition as the premier meat and seafood store in the greater Harrisburg area. In addition to his business leadership, Mr. Karns recently was honored by the Boy Scouts of America New Birth of Freedom Council for his generous contributions to one of our prized, American institutions. In addition, he's served on the board of the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association and the advisory board of Channels Food Rescue. In his spare time, Scott enjoys traveling with Marleen, his wife of 37 years, supporting his church and community, cooking up new recipes, hitting the links, and spending time with his grandchildren. On behalf of Pennsylvania's Tenth Congressional District, I'm honored to recognize the leadership and community involvement of Mr. D. Scott Karns. I thank and commend him for his tireless service, commitment and leadership to the Central Pennsylvania region.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 140 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 141.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the United States' recognition of Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Now is a critical and appropriate time for the United States to formally recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel. At a time when Iran and terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah, are using the turmoil created by the civil war in Syria to expand their presence in the region, it is clear they hope to seize the Golan Heights to then launch attacks against Israel. Recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights is vital to the security interest of the United States and Israel. I co-led a letter last December to Secretary Pompeo outlining the critical nature of recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan and encouraging the administration to do so. This recognition should have occurred under several previous administrations, but the strong leadership needed was not present. I am glad that we finally have a President that is taking the necessary steps to foster stability and peace in the Middle East. I applaud President Trump and his administration for issuing the proclamation recognizing the Golan Heights as part of the State of Israel.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Loudermilk for the time, and I, too, thank the majority leader for his comments. But I don't think it should be removed from history that the Governor of Alabama at that time ran on segregation; multiple times, ran on segregation. It was the Republicans in this House, the majority percentage of Republicans, that carried the day for the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Chair, this bill, among other things, forces States to count votes cast outside of voters' assigned precincts. Just think about that. I am going to vote for you over here even though I don't live there. That is going to be great. That is what we all want, people who don't live in our neighborhoods voting for the people who decide our fates and our policies. Mr. Chair, the For the People Act, that is what it is called, but I wonder: Which people? Is it the people here or the people out there? It seems like it is for the people here when powerful voices on the left and the right oppose this bill, voices like the ACLU, voices like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, because, Mr. Chair, while you might want to contribute to one of those organizations because you believe in their cause, you don't want the protest to show up on your doorstep. It is bad enough that it shows up, the protest, at Planned Parenthood or the NRA or the gun show or whatever, but now the protest is going to show up at your door--at your door--because the people who are opposed to the things you believe in are going to find out you sent your 5 bucks in. They are going to come to your door and say: Well, I don't agree with you. I don't like you. And I don't think you should be spending your money on those things. Is that what we want in America? That is what this bill does, Mr. Chair. Essentially, it is going to empower the Federal Election Commission to carry out the actions of Lois Lerner and the IRS during the last administration in an attempt to silence opposition to the politicians in the swamp, in this place, regardless of which side you are on. I urge a ``no'' vote for this bill, Mr. Chair.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this rule is about what is called the For the People Act, but, to me, it should be called the ``For the Swamp Act.'' Now, we are going to have plenty of time later to debate the particulars of the bill, but right now we are talking about the rule and what brings this to the floor. I just want to remind everybody that this bill was given jurisdiction in 10 committees--10 committees--but 1 committee marked it up; one committee took a look at it and said: Well, this is wrong. Let's fix this. Let's change that. One committee with nine people--2 percent of Congress--has been involved in this bill. Now, we understand we are in the minority here. We get that. We get that we are not going to get our way, but we are asking to have a say. That is all we are asking for here. This bill is about shutting down the open process and honest debate-- this rule resolution, which actually makes sense, because the underlying bill does the same thing for the American people.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, today I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Mrs. Ellen Greaney Jacobs, a resident of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, who is celebrating 100 years young on Monday, April 1, 2019. Mrs. Jacobs was born in Bound Brook, New Jersey, and moved to New Bloomfield, Pennsylvania with her mother, brother and two sisters after her father died. Ellen graduated from New Bloomfield High School and the Carlisle Commercial College. She married her husband of 69 years, Cyrus D. Jacobs, in Westminster, Maryland on September 24, 1938. Ellen has three sons, six grandchildren, and twelve great grandchildren. Ellen is an active member of the Order of the Eastern Star (Capitol City Chapter), Dauphin Middle Paxton Historical Society, Dauphin Middle Paxton Area Senior Citizens, and still delivers Meals on Wheels on a regular basis. She is a longtime member of Hope United Presbyterian Church in Dauphin, where she enjoys Christian fellowship, Bible study, and making Easter and Christmas candy. She enjoys playing pinochle with her card club, reading, gardening (especially her beloved roses), watching the leaves change in the fall and flowers bloom in the spring, and bird watching. I join Ellen's friends and family in extending my best and warmest wishes to her on this special day, and in celebrating her life and contributions to our great Commonwealth and Country. On behalf of Pennsylvania's Tenth Congressional District, I extend God's blessings and my heartfelt congratulations to Mrs. Ellen Greaney Jacobs on her 100th Birthday.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to condemn the senseless, cowardly, and horrific terrorist attack in India, the deadliest in three decades. On February 14 of this year, a suicide bomber rammed an explosive- packed vehicle into a convoy, claiming the lives of 40 Indian paramilitary forces and wounding at least 44 others. The Pakistan-based militant group, Jaish-e-Muhammad, later claimed responsibility for the attack. We mourn the victims of this act of terror and call for continued action against any nation, to include Pakistan, that harbors terrorists and promotes violent extremism. India has announced its plans to diplomatically isolate Pakistan and cancel its preferential trade status. We support these efforts, Mr. Speaker. This attack only further strengthens our U.S.-India counterterrorism cooperation. To the nation of India, we mourn with you, we pray for you, and we stand in solidarity with you during this difficult time.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for the opportunity. Mr. Speaker, this is bad policy following bad process--an 1100-plus- page bill dropped at midnight last night, and we are acting like we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. We are acting like we can't keep our Federal Government open and fix our border situation. Let's talk about what is happening because that is the problem. At least, if nothing else, we should do no harm. Let's not make the situation worse. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides amnesty for anyone in a household of an unaccompanied minor, and it protects the people who have smuggled those children into the United States and encourages them to do that even more. And even more than that, once they are here, we cut $700 million out of ICE, and we reduced their bed space. So there are less people looking for those people who are here illegally. Then when we find the criminals, when they have committed some crime and we find them, we can't even keep them. We have to release them back into our communities. Mr. Speaker, city councils are now deciding where we secure our border. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I am opposed to H.J. Res. 37, Mr. Chair. This resolution is poor policy and will not achieve the aims of those who support it. That is really the crux of the issue here. My colleagues are using this resolution to express their concerns with the actions of Saudi Arabia and the status of the war in Yemen, disregarding the dangerous precedent this resolution will send. The joint resolution improperly expands the definition of hostilities to include non-U.S. military operations by third countries. This bill then reinterprets the U.S. activities in support of those countries as U.S. engagements in said hostilities. The Department of Defense and the White House have both correctly stated that, under the longstanding definition of hostilities, the United States is not engaged in such in Yemen. In order to force a privileged measure in the Senate, my colleagues had to expand and distort the definitions in the War Powers Resolution to achieve their goals. This is absolutely poor policy, and we cannot support such a measure. The misuse of this privileged tool endangers U.S. security cooperation with over 100 partners around the world, to include Israel, NATO, and many antiterror allies. Now, I understand my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are unhappy with the actions taken by Saudi Arabia. Frankly, I am as well. Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, Mr. Chairman, with imperfect actors. We must deal with the reality of geopolitics in the way that they are and not the way that we wish they would be. We and I find many of the things the Saudis to be doing horrific, including the murder of Muslim Brotherhood member Khashoggi. I was one of the first people to go on the record demanding the declassification of the 9/11 report concerning Saudi Arabia, but this will not be the first action Saudi Arabia takes that is counter to our beliefs here in the United States. During the first 4 months of 2017, Saudi Arabia beheaded 48 people.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, according to the reports, half of those deaths were for nonviolent drug charges. The Saudi Kingdom executes its citizens for blasphemy and crimes against the state, actions that are protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I understand that we are dissatisfied--I am, too--but using poor policy to terminate U.S. assistance will not improve conditions in Yemen. Iran's own IRGC commander openly admitted that Iran provides military assistance to the Houthis in Yemen. In this body, we can choose to stand with Iran or the Houthis or, as I suggest, to stand with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Mr. Chair, this resolution is not the right step. It is poor policy. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, today I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Mrs. Michelle Crowley, a resident of Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania, who is receiving the Exchange Club of Carlisle's prestigious Molly Pitcher Award. Chartered by the National Exchange Club in 1949, the Exchange Club of Carlisle gives individuals the opportunity to use their time and talents to benefit their local communities and the country as a whole. The Molly Pitcher Award, which has annually honored citizens for their outstanding service to the Carlisle community since 1969, is named after the revolutionary war heroine who risked her life to bring water to artillerymen under fire. As evidenced by receiving this honor, Mrs. Crowley's charitable endeavors have made a significant impact and improved the lives of many in central Pennsylvania. Throughout her successful career in business, Mrs. Crowley has served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania Association of Chamber Professionals, the Cumberland Area Economic Development Corporation, and the United Way of Carlisle & Cumberland County, as well as serving as president of the nearly 700-member Carlisle Area Chamber of Commerce. Mrs. Crowley' s devotion to bettering her community is also underscored by her participation in education and workforce development efforts, such as working with Dickinson College and area school districts on student internships, job shadowing, and placement. On behalf of Pennsylvania's Tenth Congressional District, I express my sincere gratitude to Mrs. Crowley for all she has done and continues to do for the Carlisle community, and congratulate her on receiving the Molly Pitcher Award.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Well, I thank the gentlewoman so much, and I know this is a sensitive, uncomfortable topic, but it must be discussed. We can't just close our eyes and turn our head from uncomfortable things. I am so proud and thankful that the gentlewoman has been willing to step up and stand up for these young ladies all around the world and in the United States as well, in our communities. Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen, this is violence. This is violent. Now, a friend showed me a picture, and it is one of those things where you sometimes wish you hadn't seen something that you had seen, and you can't unsee it but it has such an impact on you. I have that picture now, so I am just going to continue to talk about that a little bit. This is a picture from a National Geographic magazine. And when I and the gentlewoman from Florida talk about the cultural aspects of this-- this poor little girl. You can see the grimace on her face. There is no sanitation, so to speak. This is not necessarily performed in a doctor's office. It looks almost like a school with a bunch of people around, right? No anesthesia. They are holding her down, three of them holding her down. She doesn't want this to happen. This lady is smiling in her face. I can't imagine this little girl--wherever she is from, whoever she is, I can't imagine that this, somehow, is acceptable anywhere. I feel compelled--I feel it is my duty, it is our duty--to speak out and say something about this to make sure it doesn't happen anywhere-- it doesn't happen in our homes; it doesn't happen to one more little girl. I stand before you today to call for an end to this horrific, barbaric practice internationally. Only 28 of our United States have statutes criminalizing FGM to any varying degree. And again, I have gone to my State, and I have said: ``Please, will you do something?'' ``Well, this isn't happening. We don't have any reports of it.'' We don't have any reports because it is legal. If people knew it was illegal, they would report it when they saw it. When this little girl goes to the doctor some day, they would report it. I ask that the 22 States that currently have no law banning FGM, to include my home State of Pennsylvania, to pass legislation immediately. I am asking them right here, right now, today, on this day of international condemnation of this barbaric practice. This is the day, the International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM, female genital mutilation. Now is the time to stand up for the voiceless. These are little girls. These are little girls whose mothers and fathers take them to do this to them. Sometimes they do it to them, as you have heard, themselves. Little girls who trust their parents, who trust their mother would never hurt them, right? Voiceless. This must be criminalized, this horrific practice of FGM. FGM has absolutely no place in America or anywhere else in the world. Again, there is no medical reason to do this whatsoever--none. It is unconscionable. FGM is unconscionable. It is a systematic form of abuse and female subjugation perpetrated against the youngest and most vulnerable among us. And it doesn't just end right there. When she is done with this, it doesn't end there. She has got to heal, which may take weeks and months, or longer, physically. But the scars of what happens to this little girl and millions around the world and in our country, as well, lasts the rest of their lifetime. For what? As our society becomes more transient and diverse, we must strengthen our efforts to stop this practice. It simply must end immediately. Those who perpetrate it must be brought to swift justice in the United States. We can no longer have somebody report and put themselves out there and peril themselves, make themselves vulnerable to retribution or what have you for the judge to throw it out. I am not here to criticize the judge who looked at the Constitution and said: Look, this isn't the place for it. I get that. That is the judge's job. But it is our job in Congress to get this right, to make sure that the law says one way or the other: This is a problem in our country. We don't accept this. We reject this, and there is going to be a penalty for doing this. Those little girls can't protect themselves. They have no protection whatsoever. They are counting on their parents and the adults in their lives. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle and across the political spectrum for their support of bipartisan solutions to condemn and stop this atrocity. We have great support, and we think we are going to get even more support, bipartisan support. There are not many things that Democrats and Republicans, that conservatives and liberals across the country can agree upon, but we can all agree that, if that were our little girl, there is no way in hell we would let that happen. There is no way. So not only us, as different people on different sides of the aisle here in this United States Congress, but the international community is also weighing in on this as well, as you have already heard. They have said enough is enough. It is bad enough that it is happening in other parts of the world, but in the 21st century, in 2019, this is happening right here in the United States of America. And Americans need to be aware. They need to be informed. The medical practitioners need to be informed. Law enforcement needs a tool. They need something to ensure that the people who are contemplating doing this will contemplate not doing it; that people who think somehow it is culturally acceptable figure out and are informed that it is not; that people who somehow feel that they must do this to their little girl so that they can then force her into some marriage and that she will be acceptable to the partner that she is forced to be with, that that is no longer acceptable either. It never was acceptable. It is not acceptable in the United States, and it is our job to make sure it is not acceptable anywhere. And it starts right here, and it starts right now. We have waited too long. Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to speak up on this issue. It is sensitive, and that is why people don't want to speak up on it, because it is embarrassing to talk about, and I guess they are afraid of the embarrassment. But I am not. Somebody has to speak up for these little girls that have no one else, that, after the fact, can do nothing about this for the rest of their lives. They only have us here, people who don't know them, people who will probably never ever know them. They have us, and it is our job. It is our duty to stick up for them and put ourselves out here. And if it takes being uncomfortable, well, that is what it takes. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be here today to offer this. I would ask that if my colleagues who are listening haven't heard about this, please take a look at these two pieces of legislation. I appreciate their input. If they have got ways to improve them or if they are concerned about what we are trying to do here and think it is overreaching or something like that, I would appreciate your input. We want to make sure that we are doing the best job that we can, and that we are doing the best job that we can for little girls like this who are being held down against their will and having their body parts cut off of them because of some culture and some ideas that they will somehow be more worthy in their community once they are mutilated for the rest of their life. That is our job here. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I am here today to talk about something that is completely unimaginable to me. I can't imagine I am here to talk about it on the floor of the House of Representatives. I can't imagine that it occurs in the world. I can't imagine that it occurs on this very day in this world. I can't imagine that it occurs in our country, but it does. Madam Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with all who condemn a horrific practice on this, the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation. Today, I introduced a bipartisan resolution with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida, Congresswoman Lois Frankel, which calls for a coordinated response from the United States and the international community to end this horrific and cruel practice. The numbers surrounding FGM are shocking. They are staggering. Two hundred million women and girls alive today are survivors of FGM. Of those 200 million, 44 million are girls at or under the age of 14. Madam Speaker, these are children. These are the little girls who you see going to elementary school in your community. This year alone, an estimated 3 million girls are at risk of being genitally mutilated. In 25 countries where FGM is routinely practiced, between the years 2015 and 2030, an estimated 68 million girls will be cut, unless we take concerted and accelerated action. This is an urgent situation when you imagine what happens, and I am going to go through it with you. People ask, what exactly is FGM? Until just a few years ago, until I read about it and met some of the ladies who have had to endure it, I didn't know and I wasn't aware. But FGM comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for nonmedical reasons. There is no medical necessity whatsoever to do this. It is most commonly performed on girls from infancy to age 15. Now, just think about that: no anesthesia, no forewarning, no approval. Madam Speaker, I am joined by the gentlewoman. Wonderful. FGM is classified into four major types, ranging from pricking, nicking, scraping, and cauterization, to total excision and infibulation. FGM is widely recognized by the international community as a violation of women's and girls' basic human rights, the right to their own body, their very own body and no one else's, and what happens to it. Organizations that condemn FGM include the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The World Health Organization says this practice has no health benefit for women and girls and, instead, can have severe short- and long-term impacts on the physical, psychological, sexual, and reproductive health of these innocent, helpless girls. The immediate physical complications of FGM include, obviously, severe pain, excessive bleeding, fever, urinary issues, shock, and death. That is just the beginning. In the long term, a girl may experience cysts, infections, septicemia, painful and difficult urination and menstruation, and increased risk of death during childbirth for both the mother and the unborn child. The pain inflicted by FGM doesn't stop with the initial procedure. It often serves as an ongoing torture throughout the woman's life, for her whole life. Who practices FGM? FGM is a deeply rooted cultural practice. Different communities give different explanations for why they insist upon FGM, which usually involves nonfactual, misleading, and, frankly, insulting arguments about cleanliness and womanhood. FGM communities often consider the practice a necessary part of raising a girl and a way to prepare her for adulthood and marriage. It is literally unbelievable. It is viewed as a way to ensure premarital virginity and marital fidelity. It is more likely to be carried out by communities that believe that this mutilation increases marriageability. In other communities, FGM is practiced under the notion that girls are more clean and beautiful after removal of body parts that are considered unclean, unfeminine, or male. As an international community, we must work with these communities to provide accurate information about the harm of this practice, about the long-term harm of this practice to women and girls, and change the narrative that somehow FGM is okay or tolerable for any reason whatsoever. It is not okay. It is not tolerable for any reason under the Sun. People ask where FGM is practiced. FGM is primarily concentrated in 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Currently, for girls 11 and younger, FGM has the highest prevalence in Gambia at 56 percent, Mauritania at 54 percent, and Indonesia at 50 percent. It is most common in Somalia, Guinea, and Djibouti, where more than 90 percent of women and girls ages 15 to 49 are mutilated on a regular and systematic basis. Make no mistake, however: FGM is a global problem. The World Health Organization warns that growing migration has increased the number of girls and women living outside their country of origin who have undergone FGM or who are at risk in Europe, Australia, Latin America, and North America. Just last Friday, February 1, the United Kingdom handed down its first-ever guilty verdict of a woman who committed FGM on her 3-year- old daughter. I have daughters. It is just unimaginable to me. The largest health network in Belfast saw 17 cases of FGM in just 9 months between April 2017 and January 2018. Unfortunately, unbelievably, FGM has also made headlines in the United States. In April 2017, Federal prosecutors for the first time used a 1996 Federal statute criminalizing the practice of FGM to bring charges in Livonia, Michigan, against Drs. Fakhruddin Attar and Jumana Nagarwala. These doctors are accused of performing FGM on at least nine underage girls, from 8 to 13 years old, from at least three States. This is happening right here in our communities. I have an excerpt from the 10 criminal complaint pages against Dr. Nagarwala. This is what happened, according to investigators and the victims themselves. These are direct excerpts. On April 10, 2017, victim 1 was interviewed by a child forensic interviewer employed by the FBI. She is 7 years old. She stated that she was brought to Detroit, Michigan, with victim 2 for a ``special'' girls' trip. After they arrived at the hotel, victim 1 advised that she and victim 2 had to go to the doctor because ``our tummies hurt.'' While at the doctor's office, a procedure ``to get the germs out'' of her was performed. Victim 1 identified an unmarked photograph of Nagarwala and said that she was the person who performed the procedure. Victim 1 said she took off her pants and underwear and laid on an examining table with her knees near her chest and her legs spread apart. She said that Nagarwala ``pinched'' her on the ``place where she goes pee,'' and that she was given a pad to wear in her underwear as she left. She said that she was told not to talk about the procedure. On April 11, 2017, a medical doctor in Minnesota performed a complete medical examination of victim 1 pursuant to a search warrant. Your affiant has spoken with the medical doctor who performed the exam, and the doctor's preliminary findings are that her genitals are not normal in appearance. Her labia minora has been altered or removed, and her clitoral hood is also abnormal in appearance. Finally, the doctor observed some scar tissue and small healing lacerations. On April 10, 2017, victim 2 was interviewed by a child forensic interviewer employed by the FBI. Victim 2 is also 7 years old. She said that she came to Detroit with victim 1 and that she went to a doctor's office. She identified a photograph of Nagarwala as the doctor who she saw in Detroit. Victim 2 said that, in the examination room, Nagarwala took off her pants and underwear and put her on the table. She said that she ``got a shot,'' and that it hurt really badly and she screamed. She said the ``shot'' was on her upper right thigh. She drew a picture of the room, and she drew an X to indicate blood on the examining table. She said her parents told her that the procedure is a secret and that she is not supposed to talk about it. She said that, after the procedure, she could barely walk and that she felt pain all the way down to her ankle. She said Nagarwala told her that she was fine. Victim 2 said that she left one of her winter gloves in the medical office. This is a little 7-year-old girl. On April 10, 2017, a search warrant was executed at the medical clinic. During the search, agents found a child's winter glove in the medical clinic. The glove had victim 2's first name written on it. Nineteen months later, in November 2018, a Federal judge in the Eastern District Court of Michigan ruled the 1996 Federal statute unconstitutional and actually dismissed several charges against these so-called doctors and their co-conspirators. In the Michigan case, Judge Friedman of the Eastern District Court of Michigan wrote that ``Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM. . . . `Local criminal activity' . . . is for the States to regulate, not Congress.'' Because of that, because of that disappointing and horrific news, the good gentlewoman from Florida and I are offering a bill today that works within the Federal Government's jurisdiction to combat this reprehensible practice. On Monday, I introduced two bills. The first was the bipartisan Protect Our Girls Act, H.R. 959, in which we expressly criminalized the transport of a minor across State lines for the purpose of female genital mutilation. The majority of these girls involved in the recent case were from Minnesota and Illinois, while the mutilation was performed in a clinic in Michigan. My second proposal, the Empower Our Girls Act, H.R. 960, adds female genital mutilation to seven grant programs within the Violence Against Woman Act, or what is commonly known as VAWA. The grants will focus on providing assistance in the criminal justice system and support from social service organizations to these ladies and little girls. This is the first time that VAWA programs will address FGM and will allow victims of this unspeakable, unimaginable act to have the same opportunity to receive assistance as victims of other violent crimes. The bill also adds female genital mutilation as a separate crime under the FBI's uniform criminal reporting system. By codifying the existence of this crime, the bill lays the foundation for collecting information as it occurs across States. Reporting will assist in identifying other measures to bolster prevention and prosecution. Before I yield to my good friend from Florida (Ms. Frankel), I just want to tell folks who might be listening or watching that one of the things that we hear when we go to the States--because law enforcement typically happens at the State level--and we say, ``Would you please consider a law for this so that this doesn't happen, so that this is illegal, so that people aren't encouraged to practice it but are discouraged from practicing?'' they will say, ``Well, it doesn't happen here. We don't have any cases of it being reported.'' It is not going to be reported, folks. The people who are doing this are doing it in secret. And once it has happened to a young girl or a lady, imagine the shame or the fear of going to a doctor and talking about something like that. It is not reported for a reason. And because it is not reported, it is becoming more prevalent. We just can't allow that to happen. At this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk a little bit about what we just saw, which is what the gentleman from Texas is talking about, this vote that we just had with the condemnation of shutdown. Let's just be clear. Nobody--nobody--in this House, whether it be Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, anywhere in between, or in the Senate, nobody votes for shutdown. There is no bill that says: Are you voting ``yea'' to shut down the Federal Government or are you voting ``nay''? That is not how this goes. What happens is we are trying to fund. It is an appropriations bill. And ``appropriation'' is a fancy way of just saying: We are taking your tax dollars, and this what we are spending. This is our priority. This is how we are spending it. There is a disagreement, and we can't come to an agreement. Nothing happens. That is the problem: nothing happens. So the Federal Government shuts down. Now, we had a discussion earlier on when I said: Look, we are having this vote today to condemn this horrible thing. That doesn't fix anything. It doesn't solve a thing. It is just theater. And the American people and our country have big issues at stake that we need to get to solving. This doesn't solve anything. This is just: Let's make sure we place blame where we think blame is so we can pound our chest and feel good and we can--oh, by the way-- cover for some of our Members who voted ``no'' on paying Federal employees who were working. That is what this was all about. It is in the past. It is in the past. But right now we should be talking about the negotiation which caused this whole thing in the first place. Quite honestly, you should be able to talk and chew gum at the same time, which is: Let's have a discussion about what is appropriate at the border and keep all of the Federal Government open at the same time. But, no, we can't do that because we are not interested in securing our border. That is really what this is all about. This is the Homeland Security appropriations bill. And if you are not talking about securing the border in the Homeland Security appropriations bill, I don't know where you are going to talk about it. So, again, no one wants a shutdown. No one voted for a shutdown. But I reminded the majority party that, in December, this House, under Republican leadership, voted for a bill that would have kept the government open and, in walking and chewing gum at the same time, provided for border security that the President would have signed. The majority leader said: You guys voted on a bill after waiting for a year that you knew couldn't pass. Well, during that period of a year, the reason it couldn't pass is the reason it didn't pass in the Senate: because Senate Democrats refused to fund border security. Now, I believe they are for border security, but if it says ``the wall,'' well, that is President Trump, and we certainly can't have any of that. I would say we have got to get past that. Look, you can dislike the President all you want. That is your prerogative. But don't translate your dislike for the President into not caring for the security of the American people. And that is what has happened here. We are now in January, at the end of January. We don't know what the numbers for January are. We don't know the numbers for December yet. But Homeland Security reported in November, between the ports of entry, between the points of entry, 51,000 people were apprehended coming across our border. We don't know how many weren't apprehended. We just know we got 51,000. My friends on the other side of the aisle say: We are for border security, so we want some drones and more technology and beef up the points of entry. We are not opposed to that, but we are saying, generally, that is status quo, right? We are talking about fixing the status quo. We are not talking about doing anything in between the points of entry, which is what the discussion really is all about. And the President is willing to do things at the points of entry and in between, but some folks are not, and that is where we are having a problem.

Mr. PERRY. In 1 month.

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I am not sure what else to call it. We are a generous people, and I, myself, am the product of legal immigration through Ellis Island. We want to remain that way. The United States is the most generous nation on the planet in that regard, I think last year admitting, legally, about 1.7 million people into our country. All we are saying is: Listen, please just knock on the door. We have a process here. We have got to do it the right way. Don't just barge in. Just ring the doorbell. But these folks are saying: Well, we don't want to ring the doorbell. You can clearly see why, if you are trafficking in little girls or young men, if you are trafficking in the 90-plus percent of heroin coming across the border and into every single town, laced with fentanyl. If you are trafficking in MS-13, you are not going to go to the point of entry and say: ``Hey, Mr. Border Patrolman, I have got this stash of drugs here. You don't mind if I bring this into your country.'' No, you are going to go where they are not. The President is saying this is where we need to secure our border as well, as well as the points of entry. Again, I don't understand why we are in this mutually exclusive position. I don't think that Democrats don't want to secure the border, but securing the border has to be more, something more than putting a drone up in the sky so that we can see them coming. The point is that they don't get across the border, not just to see them coming, but that they don't get onto our side of the border with whatever they are bringing and that we interdict them. That is the issue here. So I think we should be closer than we are, and I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to just appeal to their better angels. We don't have to side with the cartels. Republicans and Democrats can be together and siding with the American people and securing America and its people from this unsafe circumstance, whether it is gang members and gang-related violence, whether it is drugs coming into our community, or whether it is low-skilled labor that puts our low-skilled labor--there are people in America, believe it or not, who don't graduate high school, and they have a hard time finding a job because they don't have an education. Not only are they competing against the things that they have in their own circumstance--right?--of not having an education in their own country, but now they are competing against other people who don't have a high school education from another country, who are willing to work for less than they are. If we don't stand up for the least of those in our community who have the least, who have the worst disadvantage against them, our constituents, who is going to? I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: It is really time to stop with the theater here and the blame game. It is what it is now. Nobody votes for a shutdown. Nobody votes for a shutdown. But stop with all that, and let's get to real, live negotiations. You don't have to side with the cartels. You can side with the American citizens. You don't even have to consider it siding with the President of the United States if you find that unpalatable. You can side with the citizens in your community who don't want MS-13, who don't want heroin, who don't want fentanyl, who don't want people stealing their wages from the citizens in their community. So I would just appeal to them. I know their heart is good, so we just ask them to negotiate in good faith. The good gentleman from Texas and I will be here when they come up with their plan. We have asked--right?--for 30-some days: What is your plan? We know you don't like the President. We got that. But what is your plan? Have we seen it? I haven't seen anything yet, right? I haven't seen their proposal yet.