Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. So we lost 4 years. What caused losing 4 years?

Mr. PERRY. More importantly, for this illustration, it is as important that we were telling the public--because the CBO projection told us that it was going to be 4.5, 4.4, but we were basing all our estimates on those numbers. We are basing our estimates on those numbers, and those numbers turned out to be true to the point that it is not even 2.3. It is more like 2.1, currently. It is even less than that.

Mr. PERRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Arizona. When I start my townhall meetings, I always start with our fiscal situation because people ask me--and I imagine it is the same in your district--what is wrong with you people in Washington? Why can't you get along? What is all the bickering about? That slide is instructive because I explain to them that nearly 70 percent of the budget we don't discuss at all, and it keeps getting smaller--the things that they kind of associate with the Federal Government--because, in their minds, these other things, the things you talked about--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, care for our veterans, the ACA--all just happens automatically, and they think about--oh, I don't know--the IRS, the Park Service, the military. I keep telling them that it gets smaller, and so we squabble more over this diminishing pie. I just need you to clarify something. So you say it is formula driven. That makes sense to you, and it makes sense to me.

Mr. PERRY. But can you make that easy for a layman?

Mr. PERRY. It is for my mother, who is already on Social Security, and it is definitely for me and for anybody who thinks he may collect Social Security, understanding that, when we say ``entitlements,'' that is not meant to be you are entitled to it. Do you know why you are entitled to it?--because the government forced you to pay into it. They forced you to invest when it comes to Social Security, right? They forced you to invest. It might not be a good investment, but you must invest. It is important, and I think you are going to talk about this a little bit in the future of how that investment is going.

Mr. PERRY. Sure.

Mr. PERRY. Because of the formula.

Mr. PERRY. Right, and the population growth for those people who will be receiving benefits.

Mr. PERRY. What are the consequences of not doing that?

Mr. PERRY. I sure hope so. My kids hope so.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, one of the most oft-repeated campaign promises from President Obama's 2008 campaign was his determination to close the U.S. Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Congress, a coequal branch of government representing each citizen and reelected every 2 years, hasn't come to the same conclusion as President Obama about the status of GTMO moving forward. Because of this, we have blocked funding for its closure year after year after year. We have strong reasons for concern. Last September, the Director of National Intelligence reported that 117 transferred detainees are confirmed to be reengaging in terrorist activities, with another 79 suspected to have done so. Disturbingly, this amounts to a full 30 percent of transferred detainees either confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist activities. The Director's report clearly shows that the detainee transfer process is obviously deeply flawed and poses a significant unnecessary and unacceptable risk to the security of our Nation and, quite frankly, the world. The high percentage of reengagement clearly exposes the fact that we have just simply failed to properly identify the threat posed by transferred detainees and provide necessary safeguards to protect our citizens--safeguards that should have been in place before one single transfer ever took place. Given the dire national security implications posed by these detainee transfers, I, along with 23 of my colleagues in this House, sent a letter last week to President Obama requesting to see the terms of agreements made with countries where detainees have and will be transferred. There are 55 countries, by the way, including the likes of Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, and Iran. Yemen, really? Libya is a failed state--which we may have had a great part in creating--and we are sending terrorists there to be detained? Think about it. What incentive would it take for you to bring a terrorist to your country? to your neighborhood? to your home? In particular, I am interested in the agreements' provisions to mitigate the inherent danger posed by detainee transfers. Specifically, what were the provisions aimed at preventing reengagement? Were there any? How did we ensure accountability by the home countries? What did these nations do to prevent contact with known terrorists, especially in countries that are full of terrorists, like Yemen or Somalia? How did we ensure these countries offer no form of aid and assistance to terrorist organizations? The President says detaining these people is a recruiting magnet. Well, I wonder if we shouldn't detain gang members in our country. It is a right of passage to go to prison if you are in a gang. Should we let them all out, too? According to that logic, incarcerating them creates more of them. He also says that detaining them indefinitely, without a trial, violates America's principles. You know what? He is right. You ought to ask yourselves as taxpayers: Why did we pay millions of dollars for a state-of-the-art court facility for sensitive and top-secret information during a trial, and yet no one has been put on trial? It is right there next to the detention facility. I walked through it myself. Why can't the military tribunals take place so we can find out what the deal is with these people and have them incarcerated correctly or set them free? It doesn't happen at all. President Obama declared to America in 2013 that his administration is ``the most transparent administration in history.'' I will take some issue with that. Despite that fact, the President has clearly not lived up to this standard recently. I sincerely hope that the President will give his promise of transparency higher priority than the priority given to unilaterally closing GTMO as part of a final-year, legacy-driven agenda. It is not about his agenda. It is about the security of our Nation. It should be about the security of the world. These folks should not be let out. They should be given due process. They certainly shouldn't be sent to countries that are terrorist in nature. Finally, the American people should know what the deal is. How much is this costing? Are we sending arms to these countries? What are the arrangements? There are 55 countries. Why would they take these terrorists?

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to honor Sonya Gish on her retirement after more than 30 years of service to the United States of America. Through her work with the Information Technology Department at New Cumberland Army Depot, and her leadership role as Deputy Director, and later Director, of Distribution Policy and Processing at Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Distribution, her tireless dedication, professionalism and sacrifice touched the lives of countless people and challenged all with whom she worked with to be the best. Her colleagues describe Sonya as the consummate role model and a truly indispensable asset to DLA Distribution. Her numerous promotions and awards exemplify an outstanding record of service to our Nation's warfighters and citizens. Through work ethic and character, Sonya has truly left an enduring legacy of service. It is with great pride along with Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional district that I congratulate Sonya Gish on her retirement after more than 30 years of service to the United States of America.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to honor Patrick McCormick on his retirement after more than 38 years of service to the United States of America. Whether through his service through the U.S. Air Force, New Cumberland Army Depot, or his leadership roles as Director of Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Distribution's Current Operations and Logistics Operations, his tireless dedication, professionalism and sacrifice touched the lives of countless people and challenged all with whom he worked with to be the best. Through numerous promotions and awards Patrick has left an enduring legacy of service. In particular, by earning the Department of Defense (DOD) Distinguished Civilian Service award, the highest award available for career DOD civilian employees, he demonstrated an exceptional devotion to duty. Through hard work and leadership Patrick's record of service to our Nation's warfighters and citizens is truly outstanding. It is with great pride along with Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional district that I congratulate Patrick McCormick on his retirement after more than 38 years of service to the United States of America.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, on December 2, 2015, I inadvertently voted ``aye'' on Roll Call 657. I intended to vote ``nay''. This amendment was offered by Mr. Tonko of New York.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, once again, urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3859, which is really the issue at hand. Regarding the other issue that is being discussed here, this is an issue of failure of foreign policy: an open border and a visa waiver program that allows terrorists to come into our Nation unfettered. Other than the issue at hand, that is the issue that we are really talking about. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3859, the HSA Technical Corrections Act. Again, it is important, commonsense legislation. It amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by updating obsolete language and striking outdated offices and reporting requirements. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. PERRY. No. I need to keep moving. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say thank you to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), my good friend, for the fine work they did on this bipartisan, noncontroversial bill that is common sense and does the right thing. But, unfortunately, it has been hijacked, Mr. Speaker. It has been hijacked for this ruse. They set it aside. They said: Well, we have got this discharge petition. We want to get this bill on the floor. Mr. Speaker, they don't have the names to get the bill on the floor. Furthermore, I contend they don't even want to vote for it. They don't want to vote on it. They just want to talk about this. These are the folks who tell everybody that they are here to protect your rights. Mr. Speaker, they talk about they want the people on the no-fly list to have their right to firearms taken away from them, understanding-- hopefully, they understand--they have no idea what it takes to get on the no-fly list. These people on the no-fly list have no idea half the time that they are on it. Furthermore, the no-fly list is maintained by bureaucrats, the same administration that persecutes its citizens and has them audited by the IRS for their beliefs and what they say at a prayer breakfast. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3859) to make technical corrections to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3859, the HSA Technical Corrections Act. This important, commonsense legislation amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the HSA, by updating obsolete language and by striking outdated offices and reporting requirements. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the HSA, the organizing document of the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, to enhance the ability of the Federal Government to prevent future acts of domestic terrorism. The passage of this legislation marked one of the most dramatic reorganizations of the Federal Government in decades and introduced a number of new offices and reporting requirements. In the intervening years, agencies have changed; names, roles, and responsibilities have shifted; and a number of reporting requirements have expired. This legislation updates the HSA to ensure it more accurately reflects the mission of DHS, and thereby allows Congress to conduct more effective oversight of the Department. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), my good friend.

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, the Export-Import Bank has a portfolio annually somewhere to the tune of $120 billion, I think under the new proposal; $130 billion. Fifty-one percent, Madam Chairman--fully 51 percent--goes to 10 companies in our country--$120 billion. Isn't that fantastic? Whether you support or oppose the Ex-Im, everyone can welcome the fact that the reauthorization we are considering today raises the Bank's small-business target 25 percent. Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate have called on the Bank to focus on small-business needs more effectively. This amendment keeps that 25 percent small-business target in the underlying bill. It doesn't change that, but it would then raise the target by 5 percent per year through the reauthorization period. Madam Chair, $120 billion a year, $130 billion a year, 51 percent goes to 10 companies in the United States. You think: Wouldn't it be great if the town that I represent, the towns that Members in this House represent, could be one of those 10 companies? It is not to disparage any of those 10 companies. We are happy that they are in the United States, and we are happy that they are profitable. But these small businesses that are trying to get a leg up, that want to employ their neighbors and that want to enrich their communities would like a shot as well. But they don't have legions of lobbyists, and they don't have big staffs to go to the Ex-Im Bank and plead their case. What that results in is 98 percent of small businesses, 98 percent of trade across our country, is conducted without any help at all of the Export-Import Bank. Wouldn't it be great if we could remedy that? And wouldn't it be easy if we could remedy that? Madam Chairman, that is what the amendment that I propose does. With this amendment, Ex-Im still has the flexibility to devote most of its assistance--now 51 percent to 10 companies in the country--to large businesses. The big ones will still have the same access to Ex-Im. All this does is requires the Ex-Im to take small businesses more seriously. Yes, it is a little more work. They don't have the lobbyists and the staff that all these big, multinational companies do. But isn't it worth it in our small towns to help them and to assist them? We know the Bank is more than capable of doing this. In fiscal year 2014, 25 percent of its authorization went to small businesses. So the Bank easily met its target. But in the 3 years prior to that, Ex-Im ignored--literally ignored--the small-business target that Congress enacted and required of them. Under this amendment, Ex-Im has to ensure that it meets its small- business target. It has to. If we want to help small businesses like the one in your town, the one in the towns that you represent, we have to make sure that it does that. We need to keep an ambitious target that Ex-Im can meet and encourage the Bank to reach it. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.