Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, the fact is that all the reforms that the kind gentleman just spoke of are not going to happen. None of that is happening. The Senate threw that in the trash. So what we have is an Export-Import Bank that has refused to comply with the law over and over again. The fact also remains that nobody here is trying to kill the Export-Import Bank. We aren't. This is the process by which we make it better. Whether or not you sell a jar of pickles or whether you sell an airplane, $120 billion, 51 percent of it goes to 10 companies. You figure it out. You figure out what that looks like to you. To me, it looks like cronyism. That is what it looks like to me. I come from York, Pennsylvania, and instead of creating thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs, we would like to create tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs by requiring the Bank that is encumbering the United States taxpayer to work with small businesses, the businesses in our town, instead of just going to the big businesses in this country. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that constituents know why their Members vote for and against different things. Yesterday, we saw the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, and I voted ``no'' on that. Of course, I, like probably every single Member of Congress, have businesses in the district that I represent that use the Export-Import Bank to further their business, hire their employees, and help their community. So why would somebody vote against the Export-Import Bank? I am here to tell you why. We have a tradition in America of a free-market value and its wanted standing in the world. It is not by a corrupt system of cronyism and political favor, and that is what the Export-Import Bank is to me. Unfortunately, while many small businesses in every community use the Export-Import Bank, fully 98 percent of businesses don't use the Export-Import Bank to do their exporting--98 percent. But that is not really the issue. The issue is other things. For instance, between 2007 and 2014, more than 51 percent of all Ex- Im subsidies benefited just 10--10--corporations. One in particular benefited from $66.7 billion in subsidies during the past 7 years. We can't fix Social Security, and we can't afford our military. But we can sure afford for 10 corporations to get 51 percent, because it is not really about the small business in your community, generally speaking. As a matter of fact, foreign firms that receive most of Ex-Im financing are large corporations that primarily purchase exports from U.S. conglomerates, not from Main Street businesses. Five of the top 10 buyers are state-controlled and rake in millions of dollars from their own governments, in addition to Ex-Im Bank subsidies that the taxpayers are on the hook for. Five of 10 are involved in exploration, development, and production of oil or natural gas, these foreign firms collecting subsidies from American taxpayers at the same time that this administration is restricting domestic oil and gas operations right here at home. Consequently, the Federal Government has doubly disadvantaged U.S. energy firms through excessive regulation and Ex-Im Bank subsidies granted to foreign competitors. Now, sometimes in Washington it is not what you know, but it is who you know. Of the 16 members of the Ex-Im Bank's 2014 advisory committee, half, fully half, were executives at companies or unions that directly benefited from Ex-Im financing during their term--fully half. Does that sound remotely suspicious to anybody? Another five members represent companies or unions that received Ex- Im assistance shortly before they joined, and I will give you an example. Since 2011, former Energy Secretary and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has held a seat on Spanish energy company Abengoa's international advisory board. Shortly after joining the firm, Mr. Richardson was appointed to the Ex-Im advisory board, right around the same time the two Ex-Im Bank loans benefiting Abengoa were issued. Fascinating coincidence. Those taxpayer-backed loans totaled around $150 million. Supporters of Ex-Im argue that the advisory committee members being associated with their beneficiaries is a positive feature. To the contrary, I think it shows that a corporate cronyism atmosphere exists at Ex-Im and will continue to exist at Ex-Im. The office of the IG and the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, repeatedly document mismanagement, dysfunction within Ex-Im, including inefficient policies and procedures to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. Fully 124 investigations have been initiated between October 2007 and March 2014, as well as 792 separate claims involving more than $500 million, and 74 administrative actions since April of 2009 in which bank officials were forced to act internally on the basis of investigations by the inspector general. The Congressional Budget Office reported that Ex-Im programs actually operate at a deficit, because we also are told that it makes the American taxpayer money; but we don't really know, because they use their own accounting system not used anywhere else. Actually, the CBO says that will cost taxpayers $2 billion in the next decade. And you wonder why certain Members of Congress don't vote for this thing. It is not about the small businesses in our communities that are trying to do a good job and play by the rules, because they are doing a good job and playing by the rules. But there is a bigger issue here. There is more to the story. The new bill that we just passed guarantees an audit every 4 years-- every 4 years. But keep in mind that Ex-Im currently has around 30 open investigations, 75 years of combined prison time, 90 criminal indictments and complaints, 49 criminal judgments, more than $223 million in court-ordered fines and restitution, and I could go on. Mr. Speaker, the Ex-Im Bank doesn't do everything it could for small business, but it does a lot for people that know people in this town. That is why it must be reformed or ended.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to extend my sincere congratulations and express my profound pride and admiration to the players and coaches of Red Land Little League in Lewisberry, Pennsylvania, who recently returned home from the Little League World Series as the 2015 United States champions. I am privileged to represent these fine young players and their coaches, families, and supporters. This team's perseverance and determination on the road to the Little League World Series and subsequent championship makes them, among a myriad of other things, outstanding role models. The team's core values provide the foundation for their success: ``Red Land Little League Baseball is committed to the purpose of implanting firmly in the youth of the Red Land area the ideals of good sportsmanship, honesty, loyalty, courage and respect for authority, so that our children may be well adjusted, stronger and happier and grow to be decent, healthy and trustworthy adults.'' These values served the team well as they won the 2015 Little League Baseball Mid-Atlantic Region Tournament with a 3-0 record. Throughout the tournament, Red Land outscored their opponents 36-5, and they continued their momentum with an 18-0 victory over Midwest Little League. As we all know all too well, a great sign of strong character is how you handle adversity. Red Land faced that challenge and persevered in its next two games with a 9-8 victory over the Southeast team and a 3-2 victory over the Southwest team to earn the U.S. Championship. Despite a truly impressive and valiant effort, the team came up short on the world championship with a loss to Japan. However, Red Land's character, resilience, teamwork, and sportsmanship will be remembered long after the final results of that one game. The team motto, ``#whynotus,'' became the rallying cry for a team that first inspired their community and went on to inspire our Commonwealth, our Nation, and the world. One of our Fourth District residents summed it up perfectly: ``We were a little-known town that nobody even knew existed. Now, everyone around the world knows where we are.'' I am privileged and honored to recognize these players and coaches of the U.S. Champion Red Land Little League here today: Adam Cramer Jake Cubbler Jaden Henline Braden Kolmansberger Chayton Krauss Kaden Peifer Ethan Phillips Dylan Rodenhaber Zack Sooy Cole Wagner Camden Walter Bailey Wirt Jarrett Wisman Manager Peifer Assistant coaches J.K. Kolmansberger and Bret Wagner. I know I speak for my colleagues when I express our heartfelt thanks and congratulations to our U.S. champions today. The values they have demonstrated in earning this title are the values that make America the greatest country in the world. We need young people like them, with strong character and leadership, to ensure these values are passed to future generations. I, for one, am excited to see what else these guys will accomplish as they move forward with their lives and future adventures. Lest we forget, such achievements require the support of countless others behind the scenes. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I extend my heartfelt thanks and appreciation to the families and friends who devoted countless amounts of time, effort, and support on Red Land's path to the U.S. Championship. This team was away from home for many weeks as they took this journey, and this kind of triumph doesn't happen without exceptional devotion and teamwork from all spokes on the wheel. Finally, I truly commend the citizens of Lewisberry, Pennsylvania, its surrounding community, and the people across Pennsylvania and the United States who mobilized behind this team to drive and push their momentum. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to recognize our 2015 Little League World Series United States Champions, Red Land Little League, joining us in the balcony here this morning. Today, we join the team's rallying cry, which is, ``We are Red Land.''

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, debate over funding for Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with women's health care. I think we have just heard that on a couple counts. Constituents on both sides are sickened and disgusted by the Planned Parenthood videos, videos that show officials discussing the killing of babies and harvesting of their organs like they were car parts out of a salvage yard. American taxpayers are the single largest funder of Planned Parenthood, over $500 million last year alone. No American should ever be forced, under penalty of imprisonment, mind you--if you don't pay your taxes, you are going to go to jail--to support this activity with their tax dollars, period. I am a husband, a father to two little girls, a son, and a friend who cares deeply about women's health care, everybody's health care. That said, I cannot and I will not support the dismemberment and sale of the body parts of infants. I cannot in good conscience, I can't in any conscience, support legislation that funds disgusting actions of those who conduct that practice.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, no one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon; I certainly don't think the President wants them to, but I think it is clear that they are going to. The question is when. Clearly, the President tried to make a good deal. I don't think he thinks that Iran can be trusted, but I do think he thinks that they won't cheat. Mr. Speaker, the road to hell was paved with good intentions, and I am sure that the administration had and has good intentions, but the facts remain. Iran has been cheating, literally, for thousands of years--or at least that region has--and certainly, we know the facts. The facts are, for the last 36 years, Iran has cheated on every single agreement they have signed. They are cheating at this very moment. An agreement that is based on that, that they wouldn't cheat, is an agreement that is fatally flawed. Mr. Speaker, this is the same country that won't cheat, this is the same country that leaders recognize and recommend the stoning of women, the hanging of homosexuals, the sponsor of mass terrorism. This is the nation that we have signed an accord with. Mr. Speaker, the other side will tell you that this is a great agreement with robust controls and an inspection paradigm. With all due respect, none of us know what that is; yet the pillar of this agreement is based upon solely that, an inspection paradigm that is so robust that Iran can't cheat, and no one knows what it is. We are literally voting for something and on something that we don't know what it is, and we are being urged to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, Iran cannot be trusted. The blood will not be on my hands from these rockets that Hamas launches into Israel and these American soldiers that come home in body bags in the future. I just want to let everybody know that the blood will not be on my hands and the hands of those who vote against this agreement.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed from bill number H.R. 2722.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to take this opportunity to offer my sincere congratulations to Gannett Fleming on the 100th Anniversary of their company's founding. Their record of accomplishment and longevity truly is exceptional and praiseworthy. When Farley Gannett partnered with Theodore Seelye to form ``Farley Gannett, Consulting Engineer'' in Harrisburg on August 1, 1915, they laid the foundation for a company that would become a driving force in improving our communities through a commitment to growth, ethics and technical excellence. Whether designing water supply and flood control dams to improve the quality of drinking water and reducing the risk of flooding, building highways that strengthen our economy and allow for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods, or water and wastewater treatment plants that result in cleaner streams, Gannett Fleming's more than 2,000 employees maintain the tradition of excellence, innovation and responsiveness that began 100 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I also commend Gannett Fleming and its employees for their work on military and public service projects, including the Cancer Institute and Children's Hospital at the University's Medical Center in Hershey. Additionally, their ongoing support of community and charitable organizations throughout the region is invaluable. Congratulations once again to Gannett Fleming and their employees on this wonderful milestone. Best wishes for continued success in the years to come.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, I support the 21st Century Cures Act underlying text, and I thank the chairman. It has been masterful work. And who wouldn't? Who doesn't want to do something in Congress about these horrific, debilitating diseases that plague our families? We all do, but targeting additional NIH funding for cures remains critical. We absolutely all support it, but I don't support how we are paying for it--because we are not. Many of us who preach about the problems associated with mandatory spending have used the same board I use in my townhall meetings. People have seen this, and they know where we are headed. It is the biggest driver of future debt. We are creating more mandatory spending as we speak, and we are placing the burden of paying for it on people that aren't even alive yet. It is incredible. I have championed the need for providing a cure for rare diseases and the things that plague members of our citizenry since I have been here. One thing missing from this bill is the legalization of CBD. This act seems to forget about children with epilepsy and their desperate need for a cure. I ask for support of this amendment simply to shift the money from mandatory to discretionary and force us to make the tough decisions we came here to make.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the chairman of the committee for allowing me to offer this amendment. It prevents the Department of the Interior from competing with our local job creators in the use of UAS--unmanned aerial systems--for land surveying, mapping, imaging, and remote sensing data activities. There is concern that agencies like the USGS and the Bureau of Land Management are acquiring the UAS and utilizing them on projects that can be accomplished by the private sector. We have no problem with them using them. We have no problem with them using them for forest fires and those types of things, for emergency situations, but where local businesses can do this work, we think that it is unfair for the government to take that work away. Having the Department compete with local employers results in a loss of business for private geospatial firms under contract to other Federal mapping agencies. The government is actually getting a leg up on the private market by obtaining Certificates of Authorization, or COAs, and performing services with UAS that are otherwise commercial in nature. Current law and regulation permits private citizens and firms to operate UAS for a hobby. However, there is no effective enforcement to prevent government abuse of such authority for commercial purposes. The fact that government agencies can operate a UAS while the private sector cannot as freely or timely gain airspace access has created and uneven playing field. Allowing the Department of the Interior to compete with the free market use of UAS is not only poor stewardship of taxpayer money and inefficient use of resources, but results in the government duplicating and directly competing with private enterprise. This is a $73 million marketplace, Mr. Chairman. It drives more than $1 trillion in economic activity. More than 500,000 American jobs are related to the collection, storage, and dissemination of imagery and geospatial data. Another 5.3 million citizens utilize such data. As much as 90 percent of the government information has a geospatial information component. Up to 80 percent of the information managed by business is connected to a specific location. The geospatial marketplace is identified by the Department of Labor as one of just 14 high gross sectors in the United States workforce. With that, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Again, I appreciate the gentlewoman's reservations and opposition for the reasons so stated. I respect them, but I feel this is the correct place to limit in the appropriations, to make sure that the private sector can compete effectively and is allowed to do so and doesn't have to compete against the Federal Government with all the provisions it has at its hand to undermine their ability to be effective and competitive. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PERRY. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. First of all, I did state that fire observation would not be included. Indeed, it is not written in the amendment. It is very specific. So for emergency purposes, if need be, the Department of the Interior still can use, whether it uses its own or DHS' or one of the other myriad agencies that have the vehicles, it still has the ability to do that. But I would also remind the gentlewoman that there are plenty of ambulance services and other emergency services for contract hire out there in our communities that perform emergency services every hour of the day, every day of the year. That fact notwithstanding, the private industry does provide all the other things that the agency is currently embarking on on its own and leaving the private sector out. A friend just called me today and asked me, because I am a helicopter pilot in the Army, if we could put his air-conditioning unit on a roof. I said, ``Absolutely not.'' The Army doesn't do what the civilian world does for good reason. We want the civilians out there doing those things. We don't want to compete as the Federal Government. But in this case, the Department of the Interior is competing directly, and will continue to do if allowed to do so, unless prohibited. They can write contracts, and they can have somebody on call. If there is an emergency situation, they can have a contractor on call to do that, and they should. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have sought recognition today to honor the forty American soldiers who tragically perished at Bakers Creek, Queensland, Australia, June 14, 1943, during World War II. Their deaths came as a result of the crash of a B-17C Flying Fortress, which proved to be the worst aviation disaster of the Southwest Pacific war. More men died on that plane from my home state of Pennsylvania--six--than from any other State. The six men were: Pvt. James E. Finney, from Erie; T/Sgt. Alfred H. Frezza, from Altoona; Sgt. Donald B. Kyper, from Huntingdon; Pfc. Frank S. Penska, from Moscow; Sgt. Anthony Rudnick, from Philadelphia; and Cpl. Raymond H. Smith, from Oil City. Only recently has Congress officially recognized the previously classified wartime accident. As a result, most of the crash victims' families were left in the dark about the specifics surrounding their loved ones' deaths in World War II. Five years ago, many of my Congressional colleagues actively supported efforts to place a memorial monument in Arlington. Moreover, in June 2008, the Pennsylvania State Legislature passed a resolution designating June 14th as ``Bakers Creek Memorial Day.'' The monument, dedicated at Selfridge Gate entrance to Arlington National Cemetery on June 12, 2009 by the Secretary of the Army, honors the sole survivor and the 40 members of the Army Air Corps who lost their lives when a B-17C Flying Fortress crashed soon after take-off The men were being returned to combat in the Papua New Guinea Campaign following 10-days of R&R at the American Red Cross Center located at the seaside City of Mackay on the northeast coast of Australia. The aircraft, a bomber converted to transport service, was operated by the 46th Troop Carrier Squadron of the 317th Troop Carried Group which was a part of the U.S. Fifth Air Force. I understand that today, COL Michael D. Henderson, Garrison Commander of Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Honorable Kim C. Beazley, Australian Ambassador to the United States, and retired Fifth Air Force Commander, General Ralph E. Eberhart, USAF (Ret.) plan to place a wreath at the Bakers Creek Memorial to commemorate the 72nd Anniversary of the crash. I applaud the military service members at JBM-HH and the members of the Bakers Creek Memorial Association for their continued efforts to help bring closure to the casualty families and a public remembrance of the forty American servicemen who perished at Bakers Creek in Australia during World War II.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Rothfus for the amendment. Without this amendment, as he said, we will see the transfer of all National Guard Apache helicopters to the Active Component while, just last year, this Congress created the National Commission on the Future of the Army to deliberate this change in force, this restructuring issue. You say, why should we care? I mean, isn't this a squabble between one big brother and a little brother? And it kind of is. But we should care because the taxpayers have invested billions and billions of dollars over years to create the infrastructure within the Guard. But more importantly, this imposes on and weakens our national security because the Guard and the Reserve component is the repository for experience in Apache pilots. When you get tired of flying the Apache on deployment over and over again on Active Duty but want to continue to serve your country, what do you do? You join the Reserve component. You come to the Guard. And those pilots have the most experience because they have flown on Active Duty and they have flown in the Guard for years and years and years. So when they deploy, that is who you want to fly with. That is who units want to fly with because they have the experience. The operational depth is in the Guard. It is not that Governors need the Apache; it is that the United States needs the Apache. And should we transfer the Apache because the Army wants to pick on its little brother and can? And that is exactly what is happening here. I have heard the arguments. I have listened to all the arguments. I have spent 34 years in uniform. None of them make any sense, and they can't justify any of them. They talk big around this place in all kinds of acronyms that most people don't understand, but none of it is justified. I don't understand why we would do this, why we wouldn't wait just till February to get the report from a Commission that we sponsored, that we authorized in this body. Why wouldn't we wait till then? Why would we transfer the aircraft, and when the Commission comes back and says don't transfer the aircraft, oh, well, sorry, we already did that. Won't we look foolish. But more importantly, isn't this important for national security to have the experience there when called upon to go fight--and as the gentleman said, make up 50 percent of the force in the fight. Let's not do this for all the wrong reasons.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Chair, I, too, oppose this amendment. Increasing insurance requirements will not improve highway safety. I mean, what incentive does it create? How does increasing the insurance requirement improve safety? It is not backed by any sound data. The agency's own data shows that current requirements cover damages in more--more--than 99 percent of all crashes. Think about that, more than 99 percent of all crashes. But to the gentleman's point, my friend from Pennsylvania, the agency is planning on tying these requirements to medical inflation, and that results in increases of 500 percent or more. Think about that, medical inflation, this administration. I mean, isn't that the height of irony? I thought they were driving the cost of medical inflation down. That is another whole story. The fact is the industry has a remarkable safety record compared to all commercial motor vehicles. As a matter of fact, motor coaches average only 20 fatalities per year and schoolbuses only 5. Now, that is not meant to minimize those losses because every life is precious, but in a highway environment that produces 35,000 fatalities per year, the DOT study did not even consider accident data, claims data, or talk to insurance carriers about the impacts of increasing insurance or whether there is even a need for it. Indeed, this is a solution that is looking for a problem, a problem that does not exist. I urge the Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. PERRY

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

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is important to talk about what this amendment is not, as much as to talk about what it is. This amendment in no way federally legalizes marijuana. It does not allow for the recreational use of marijuana, and I maintain that I am still opposed to the recreational use of marijuana. What it does is it simply prevents the Federal Government from interfering in States that have legalized CBD and CBD oil. CBD--cannabidiol is how you pronounce it--is an extract from hemp. CBD oil has been known to reduce the amount or duration of seizures in those suffering from epilepsy or other seizure disorders. CBD oil contains no THC, the active psychotropic ingredient that makes people high. It contains none. Numerous families in my district have children with epilepsy, and they are out of options. They have tried all the FDA-approved drugs, and they sit and they watch their children fade away. And that is their option. They can either do that, they can break the law, or they can move somewhere where they can get CBD. Some have had to move to States where it is legal. They have had to split their families apart to care for their children. Mr. Chairman, 17 States--most recently, Texas, where the good chairman resides--have legalized CBD. These States have made the choice to help children with epilepsy and seizure disorders. Parents who want to treat their children should not be hindered by Federal prohibition. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), my good friend.

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

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, some things have been said about the side effects of this. These are not the same side effects as with people who smoke marijuana. This is not smoke. This is an oil extract, usually given with the care of a doctor. It is not some weed grown along the road; it is actually classified in the therapeutic temp category because the plant has very scientific properties. I understand and I respect the gentleman from Louisiana very much. When he says that he is concerned about the side effects for these children, understand children are in hospice, they are looking at their final days, their parents are looking at their final days. They take the oil extract and they start on the road to recovery. The side effect is the choice of death or life. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents funds from being used for the implementation of the United States Global Climate Research Program's National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation's Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866. Mr. Chairman, this administration and others before it have taken unilateral actions that push a climate change agenda that hinders our own domestic business and industry. Programs such as the United States Global Climate Research Program's National Climate Assessment and Agenda 21 drive burdensome regulations on unsound science, such as the new ozone rules set to take effect this October, the waters of the United States, and regulations on coal-fired power plants. I wonder why do we want to fund programs, panels, and treaties that create propaganda, propaganda that looks to drive industry out of this country. With that, I urge passage of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect the thoughts of my good colleague and good friend from Pennsylvania. I also want to remind him that we went through this last session. This very same amendment passed by vote. And while we do absolutely have the requirement and responsibility for the stewardship of the planet, I just want to remind everybody here, in case you don't know, we have these new ozone rules coming out, set to come out, or be codified in October. Yet from this administration's EPA, ozone levels have plummeted 33 percent since 1980. That is reported from the current administration's EPA. Let me just repeat that: ozone levels have plummeted 33 percent since 1980 because of the good work we have done. Yet in a downturn economy where the economy is actually contracted in the first quarter, we seek to force more unnecessary rules that are unvetted by this Congress, this people's House, on the businesses of America and also things like United Nations Agenda 21. I just feel like those rules and those regulations should come at the vetting of this body instead of by the United Nations. What is good for America should be handled by Americans. I thank the chairman for his support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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