Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

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

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), my friend.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, today, I pay homage to the legacy of a man who not only resided in Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, but much more importantly, a man who served the Commonwealth and our Nation with pride, as an exemplary businessman, phenomenal athlete, and true patriot. William Thomas Kirchhoff, Jr., was a standout quarterback for Lafayette College, eventually being inducted into their hall of fame. After college, Tom continued on to the NFL, being signed by the Philadelphia Eagles. While he is known in Pennsylvania as a great athlete, Tom is know by his family and community as a great man. His fierce quest to live a full life and raise a happy family, despite his struggle with ALS, is beyond inspirational. In fact, his attitude and drive should inspire every citizen to live fully, completely, and with a purpose, despite the challenges that may confront them. Tom physically may have left us on March 10, 2015, but his soul, spirit, and legacy will endure. To his devoted wife, Staci, and their four children--Tommy, Sam, Brynley, and Ty--on behalf of the Commonwealth and the Nation, thank you. Thank you for sharing Tom's all too short but extremely meaningful life with us. I am truly honored and humbled to be even a small part of the recognition of a truly great American. Tom, we wish you Godspeed.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, on May 14, 2015, I inadvertently voted ``nay'' on Roll Call 232. I intended to vote ``aye''. This amendment, offered by Chairman McCaul of Texas, would include counterterrorism and border security activities in the list of preferred applications which the Department of Defense considers when transferring excess property to other federal agencies. This is a strong amendment, and I want the Record to reflect my support of it.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the Appropriations Committee and the Chairman for acting to impose greater discipline on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We know that the future of nuclear power in the United States depends on having a credible nuclear safety regulator, and depends on the industry continuing to perform at a high level of safety. We feel strongly that the agency must continue its core mission of protecting public health and safety, but NRC must do so in a manner that does not add to the economic headwinds the industry faces. I support the Committee's direction to require the NRC's rulemaking process to be Commission-driven in order to provide greater discipline, transparency, efficiency, and accountability.

Mr. PERRY

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

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I see the amendment as a reasonable, bipartisan approach and agreement which has seen favorable consideration in this House in the past. As I said just previously, hydropower is the Nation's most available, reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy source. It seems to me, while we spend a lot of money, time, and energy on unproven resources, this is one that has stood the test of time. As a matter of fact, it is one of the beginning sources of energy not only in the United States but around the globe, and if we should be spending any of our resources, this is one that we know. This is one that is in every community. This is one that is clean. This is one that doesn't create too much noise for people, and it doesn't hurt fish. All it does is produce power without doing anything else, so it is hard to argue why we wouldn't be in support of this amendment and this program. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking Chairman Simpson for working on the bill and being willing to listen to this issue. This amendment seeks to highlight the fact that the Water Power Program is vitally important to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. This bill, the underlying bill, cuts hydropower by over $22 million. What the amendment I am offering does is restores that funding and offsets it with Department of Energy administrative costs. Hydropower is the Nation's most available, reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy source. Requiring only the power of moving water-- rivers, streams, and ocean waves and tides--hydropower is domestic and renewable. Hydropower is available in every region of the country. A range of technologies exist or are under development to tap the power of waves, tides, and river flows. Thousands of megawatts of potential are available from ocean energy projects from New England to the west coast and Alaska, and from in-river hydrokinetic projects proposed along the Mississippi River and others. 2,200 hydropower plants provide America's most abundant source of clean, renewable electricity. The United States produces more electricity from hydropower than from any other renewable electricity source. It accounted for 56 percent of renewable generation in 2012 and 7 percent of the Nation's overall electricity generation. New technology employed at existing hydro sites represents an opportunity for new sources of power. By installing more efficient turbines and enhancing performance, existing hydropower infrastructure can generate even more power, sustainably. Harnessing more of this energy will create a truly renewable and green energy source. There are advantages over wind and solar. Hydro has a predictable year-round output, while solar and wind output can be variable in some areas and necessitates the use of large battery banks and/or alternate power sources. Even routine, minor maintenance on a windmill can be difficult on the top of a wind tower, while hydropower provides relatively low maintenance. Hydropower facilities are quiet and often can be made unobtrusive, while many people report that considerable noise is generated by wind power. Hydropower also faces a comprehensive regulatory approval process. It involves too many participants, including FERC, the Federal and State resource agencies, local governments, tribes, NGOs, and the public. Currently, there are 60,000 megawatts of preliminary permits and projects awaiting final approval or that are pending before the Commission in 45 States. Pennsylvania, where I come from, is in the top 10 for hydropower potential, and, according to the Department of Energy, of the 80,000 total dams in the United States, 600 have the immediate capability to produce energy. This amendment seeks to highlight the lost and underutilized capacity of abundant, economical, and clean energy right here within our communities while we irresponsibly spend hard-earned tax dollars on less viable options. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment from consideration while simultaneously asking for favorable consideration on the bipartisan hydro amendment to be offered very shortly.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on the following votes because I was absent due to a family emergency. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 158 on the Motion to Recommit on H.R. 622, ``nay'', rollcall No. 159 on Passage of H.R. 622, ``aye'', rollcall No. 160 on the Motion to Recommit on H.R. 1105, ``nay'', rollcall No. 161 on Passage of H.R. 1105, ``aye''.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my good friend from Florida to bring this issue to the floor and start the discussion. Of course, when we hear from the administration that, somehow, because we are having the discussion because, somehow, we dare to question that we are on the wrong side of history, that we are unpatriotic, and literally, in many cases, the administration is trying to equate those in this Chamber, in this body, who would have a discussion and would call into question some of the tenets of this framework and then this agreement--which we didn't know much about-- that we are tantamount to the same thing as the hardliners in Iran, the hardliners that had horrific human rights violations over the course of the last 50 years, as far as America is concerned, and literally do unspeakable things. That is breathtaking to me. The problem is, among other things, that we are skeptical because our negotiating partner in this, Iran, is not trustworthy, simply not trustworthy. Just picture yourself and your own family, if you were negotiating an infraction within your own family, and while you were discussing the infraction, that member of your family was doing the exact same thing that you were discussing about the cheating. That is exactly what happened, Madam Speaker. During the discussion, during this negotiation, we found an undisclosed site in Iran, and we don't know how many more there are. It was undisclosed. They said, Oh, well, yeah, sorry about that; you can take a look now, I suppose. But how many more are there? Why would we trust someone like that? Why would we trust someone, knowing the track record over the last 35 or 40 years of this country, of this nation? I think Americans need to know where the negotiation started on both sides--what were Iran's requirements, what were the United States' requirements--because we hear this is a good deal. We understand from the administration that it is a good deal, but we want to know it is a good deal with our own eyes. We want to see it. We want to think about it. We want to internalize it. We want to have an opportunity to ruminate on it and sleep on it and look at our children and think about our grandchildren in the world they are going to live in and think about whether this is a good deal. We are told: No, it is a good deal, take my word for it. We don't know where negotiations started and ended for the most part, but some things, we do know. We do know that 2 years ago--heck, a year ago, enriching uranium for Iran was unforgivable, it was not allowed not only by the United States, but by the community of nations, by the United Nations. Now, just with this framework, we have legitimized not hundreds of centrifuges, but tens of thousands of centrifuges. Meanwhile, countries around the globe, across the globe, have peaceful nuclear programs and don't have any centrifuges. That makes one wonder--not a nuclear scientist, not a physicist, don't work at a reactor down at your local power plant--but if that is true, why did they need them? Why would we have agreed to that? We are right to be skeptical. Iran practices strategic delay. At this point, Rouhani, the guy that wrote this book, who lauded himself for duping the West in other negotiations, is at the top of the heap right now. You wonder why people in this body--forget people in this body. What about the vast majority of Americans that are skeptical? This is their voice. We are not necessarily only speaking for ourselves. We are speaking for our constituents and the majority of Americans that say ``hold on'' to the administration. You say it is a good deal, but let's look with our own eyes because of these things, because the negotiators that negotiated the nuclear deal with North Korea that was going to disallow them to have nuclear weapons, they are the same negotiators that we have now in many cases; and, oh, by the way, in case you haven't kept up on current events, North Korea has nuclear weapons. So is it really prudent and proper for us to be skeptical? Is it prudent and proper for us to ask questions? The biggest situation here, the biggest part of this is that there can be no mistakes. There is no margin of error with nuclear weapons. If one or two terrorists gets set free from Guantanamo and gets back out on the battlefield, that is regrettable; that is unacceptable, but that is very different than a nuclear blast. Unfortunately, for Israel, they are close. We live thousands and thousands of miles away, but Israel is described by their enemies that would have this nuclear weapon as a one-bomb country because that is all it will take and it will all be over for that little country. Now, you might wonder: Okay, well, certainly, Israel, that is bad for them, but why should we care so much? Yeah, it is Israel, but they are over there, and we are over here, which begets the next question: Why are intercontinental ballistic missiles not included in the negotiation? Ask yourself: What is the need for intercontinental ballistic missiles? Well, I will tell you if you don't know. It is to deliver armament. What would that armament be? Well, that would be a nuclear warhead. You don't need one to get to Israel, folks. You need one of those to get to the United States. These folks call Israel the Little Satan. Madam Speaker, you know who the Great Satan is; that is us. If this is so good, if this is so obviously good, why isn't that included in the negotiation, in the agreement, in the framework? Look, we are just foolish Americans, but it seems to make sense to us that that should be there. You have got to ask yourself--I have heard the administration say: Well, during the duration of this Presidential term, we can be assured there will be no nuclear weapon in Iran. Well, thank goodness for that; but what about the rest of us that are going to plan on living out the fullest part of our lives and our children and our grandchildren that are worried past the next 2 years? Ten to 15 years is a blink of the eye, is a moment in history. That is still too short. Never is the right answer. Never is the right answer for people and nations that act like Iran. Now, I heard recently that the administration said that they might let Congress express themselves. I thought about that--express themselves. I don't know where that verbiage came from, but it seems to me--I am looking at my rule book here. It is the recipe which we follow to run the country. It says here, under article II, section 2, regarding the President: He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. Now, if you wonder what a treaty is, just go and look it up in the dictionary. It is an agreement. I keep hearing about this is a framework for a historic agreement. Folks, ladies and gentlemen, citizens, this is an agreement between the citizens of the United States and Iran, and the President is encumbering you when he signs this to everything therein, whether you agree with it or not. We understand we have representative government, but that is why the Congress is supposed to be involved. That is why article II, section 2 says the Senate must provide advice and consent, so that your wishes are heard, so that your concerns are heard, not so that one guy, one person, makes a decision for the entire country on issues that are so important. Let's talk about other issues of like importance. There is strong precedent, historical precedent, for congressional review of nonproliferation: three strategic arm reduction treaties, START treaties with Russia; the Nonproliferation Treaty; the Biological Weapons Convention; the Chemical Weapons Convention; the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty; the U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement in 2008; and the civilian nuclear energy agreements with Vietnam and Taiwan submitted for congressional review by this President in 2014. If it is okay for them, why is this one any different? I would say to you that, recently, we heard that the country is stronger when the Congress and the administration work together. That was in reference to the authorization for the use of military force to confront ISIS. Now, ISIS is a regional threat in that portion of the world that might become a growing cancer outside its bounds. I guess it is; but what is more important than nuclear war? If it is good enough for an AUMF with ISIS, why doesn't it apply here? Finally, with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, we are told that this is a good deal and we should just trust the administration. With all due respect, I think it is important to review the recent foreign policy issues and the record. I am just going to highlight a couple of events that you might be familiar with. The Syrian red line, the red line in Syria for the use of chemical weapons--we drew a red line, and then we watched it violated a dozen times before we said something, and then we backed off. Now, we are actually talking about having discussions and some kind of an agreement with Bashar al-Assad. That didn't work out too well. Russia, they are doing whatever they want to in Ukraine. We have convinced the Ukrainians to dismantle their nuclear program, saying that we would be there for them if they were ever attacked, and we are nowhere. I served in Iraq and so did my good friend from Florida, and we think about all the lives and the energy and the hardship lost in Iraq. I think you can hardly call that a success under this current administration. Afghanistan, we were staying. We were going. We were staying. We were going. That was hardly a success in my mind. Egypt, a great wellspring of democracy where we chose the wrong side, and the Egyptian people had to choose the correct side. The Iranian green revolution, when they tried to rise up against oppression, and America turned its eyes and turned its face. Libya, where we helped overthrow a dictator, and, now, we have a failed state--and Yemen, the model of success for counterterrorism. What about the exchange of Bowe Bergdahl for five terrorists? I mean, I don't mean to be overly and hypercritical, Madam Speaker, but it just seems to me, if future performance is indicated by past performance, we have a right to be skeptical. All we are saying is it is right and it is our duty to question and to make sure that this is, indeed, good for the American people. If it is good, then the administration should have no problem showing it to us and allowing us to vet it, like so many other historical precedents have. The greatness of it will be obvious to the American people and their Representatives, their Representatives here in this Hall and the Hall across the building. With that, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the 2015 Cumberland Valley High School girls basketball team for winning its second straight Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association AAAA title. The Eagles earned an incredible 32-1 record and were the Mid Penn and District 3 Champions as well. Incredibly, this was their third State final appearance in a row. Mr. Speaker, if you are looking for a reason for this incredible run of success, I need only point you to the Cumberland Valley girls basketball vision statement, which states that this program ``provides a setting for girls to prepare for the `game of life' through the teaching of hard work, cooperation, responsibility, leadership, discipline, sportsmanship, and other essential life skills.'' The team, by its hard, unselfish play and exemplary court behavior, is a source of great pride for both the school and community. Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District is thrilled with and so proud of these fine young women. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the team, coaches, families, and supporters for this exceptional accomplishment.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 91 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. I thank Mr. Loudermilk for putting this together this evening. Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about the situation we are in, and it came to my mind that there is a reason that the legislature is supposed to make the laws. There is a reason that we have a debate and that we discuss all of the different facets, because what also came to mind is the fact that the folks who have been legalized by the President's unconstitutional action will now get a Social Security number. With that, it will allow them to qualify for the earned income tax credit. As well, many will qualify for the child tax credit. Now, the IRS Code, Mr. Speaker, allows taxes to be amended back 3 years, and these folks who have just now received their Social Security numbers will be able to receive this payment retroactively. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Where is the fairness in that? I mean, what is fair about an illegal amnesty bonus? a bonus for breaking the law? What is fair about an immigrant's standing in line, coming here legally, wading through the process, only to watch somebody come right around him into this Nation, getting a Social Security number and, not only that, getting paid for doing that? What is fair about hardworking, tax-paying Americans knowing that they can't get a break on their taxes because that money has got to go to somebody who came here expressly to break the law? What is fair about all of the children of all of these hardworking, tax-paying Americans being saddled with debt for the rest of their futures and their children's futures and those of their children's children for the sake of an illegal amnesty bonus? It is a bonus for breaking the law. What is fair about that, Mr. Speaker? Now it is in the Senate, and the Senate is saying: Well, maybe the House should send another bill. The House sent a bill. It is the will of the House. It is the Senate's turn. With all due respect, if you don't want to vote for the bill, we get that. Vote ``no.'' You can explain that to your constituents--you can explain that to your voters--but it is more important to you to pay somebody a bonus for coming here illegally. You can explain that. The point is that they don't even want to have the vote. They are making sure there will be no vote. We are saying give this bill its chance; give it its day. If you have got a better idea, if you have got a different idea, that is great. That is wonderful. Let's see it. Pass your bill and send it over, and we will work together to pass something along. I would say this to the leader of the Senate: It is time you make the rules, Mr. Leader. If now is not the time to change those rules in favor of the Constitution, when is the time? Instead of being concerned about 40-some years of tradition and of the way we run the Senate-- instead of being concerned about that--how about being concerned about hundreds of years in favor of the Constitution? When President Obama didn't like the rule, apparently, even though he said 20 times or so that he had to abide by the Constitution, he just changed it. He just disregarded it. And when Harry Reid didn't like the rule--a couple hundreds years of votes in cloture and the nuclear rule in the Senate--he just changed it. Right? We are not asking to change it all the time, but when it comes down to a constitutional crisis, when it comes down to a division of powers, do you want to stand up for a bonus for acting illegally, for breaking the law, or do you want to stand up for the Constitution? If that is not the time to change the rules for the President's unconstitutional executive action, if that is not the time to change the rules, Mr. McConnell, when is the time? The time is now. Pass a bill. Whatever your bill is, have a vote, ``yes'' or ``no,'' send it to the House, and we will work it out. This legislation, this issue demands your attention. It demands a vote. It deserves a vote. The American people need to know. They deserve to know where their elected representatives in the Senate stand, not to just not vote on anything. They didn't send them there to just not vote. They sent them there to make a decision, ``yes'' or ``no.'' We get it. If you want to vote ``no,'' good for you. You explain that. If you want to vote ``yes,'' great. But have the vote. There is no reason to not change the rule if it gets us to a vote and upholds the Constitution. As a matter of fact, if it takes changing the rules to uphold the Constitution, this is one Representative of the Fourth District of Pennsylvania who thinks it is worth it. With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I ask you: What is fair? What is fair about giving these bonuses to people who just received a Social Security card and who have been operating outside of the law for years? They receive their Social Security Card and they get a bonus. You try that. Having worked here as a person who was born in this country, you try to work under the table and then just apply and see if you will get a bonus from the IRS. Let me tell you what you get, Mr. Speaker. You will get a visit from the IRS, but it won't be for a bonus. Think about fairness, Mr. Leader in the Senate. Change the rules. Let's move this bill forward.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Yes. I have flown on the Arizona border down there. I have crossed the border in Nogales, and I have been privileged to be there. America is not where it needs to be on this. The Congress is, but we need to pass a bill, and we need the President to execute it. I thank you very much for the opportunity.

Mr. PERRY. We want to make sure that we get all the information out about this. As I said, the GAO's best estimate, I think, is about 56 percent of the border is not secured. Another thing to mention about this bill is that we are looking for 100 percent. Now, we understand, just like law enforcement, they don't catch every criminal, and sometimes prisoners escape from prison, but we expect the warden to secure the prison, and the plan is to keep everybody in prison in prison. But with this bill we expect 100 percent, and it is important to note that the other side would have us diminish that standard. Right now, GAO is saying that 50 percent of the border is unmonitored and not secured. We actually have people in this Congress saying let's lessen the standard that we have currently right now, and the best we can get is 50-some percent. I don't know who in their life plans to fail, doesn't plan to exceed and do the maximum. Whether it is showing up for work on time or anything you endeavor in, nobody shoots for below the bar. You shoot for the best. Yet in this endeavor, we have people literally in this Congress who are saying let's actually do less than we can do-- actually, let's do less than we are doing right now. So that seems to fly in the face of what every single American, regardless of your positions on other things, feels about securing the border.

Mr. PERRY. Absolutely. I want to also extend my appreciation to you for bringing up this important issue. I think this is going to kind of be a continuing conversation, at least for the next couple weeks, as we move forward into bringing this particular bill and the legislation to the floor. With that, I was just thinking that in the last couple days I saw the President on TV, and he asked a question: What kind of country do we want to be? I think you can think of that in a lot of different ways, but regarding the border, the President, while he says that, has preached over the years that he has made our Nation's border more secure than ever. I just remember last year when he was literally saying that, we saw tens of thousands of unaccompanied people coming across the border, and all of America was saying to themselves: What are you talking about? How can you say that? The Border Patrol wasn't stopping these people. They were greeting these people and bringing them into the country. You are thinking, maybe that is a great thing, but we don't know who they are or what their intentions are, and you have no credibility, Mr. President, when you say that. His statement is just supported by bloated statistics and a false sense of reality. I think most Americans understand that. As a matter of fact, the GAO recently found that only 44 percent of the southwest border was under operational control--44 percent. So 56 is just wide open apparently. Listen, that 44 percent, that is based on some best guess or some estimate because, believe it or not, they don't even keep the records. Now, you know--you know as sure as you are watching this on TV or in the gallery or sitting at home thinking about it--that those Border Patrol agents and those sheriffs are keeping records of the things they do on a daily basis and a nightly basis, drove so many miles, picked up this many people coming across the border. What happens to that information? Guess what, folks? They don't want us to have it. They don't want the GAO to have it because then we would know that our back door is wide open. I mean, these gaps on the border lead to higher crime rates and unemployment for American citizens. It is really no more complicated than your own home. Sure, you love your neighbor to your left and your right and the people that adjoin your home to the north and to the south, but that doesn't mean that you leave your doors wide open for them to come in and go as they please at all hours of the day or night. We want to be a country that is defined by who we are, and it requires protecting. If we are not going to define our country in those ways, why define it by having a border at all? That is what I think the President and many on the other side would propose, that we just abolish the borders. Well, guess what, folks? If we abolish the borders, we don't have any country at all. I was thinking about another thing I heard recently. Over the last 6 years of the couple million jobs that were created in a downturn economy, almost all of them, statistically, were filled by people that weren't born in this country. Listen, it is great to have people come here and we need to have that policy, a smart policy, but our policy should be what works for America first, and securing our border and doing what works for America is the right thing to do. It is our duty. It is our oath. Now, people say: Well, why is it so important? Look at the crime rates. More than 40 percent of all criminal cases initiated by Federal prosecutors were in districts that border Mexico. Is anybody surprised? Do you think that that doesn't correlate to something? That means something, folks. I mean, the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, stated more than 3,000 homicides were committed by illegal immigrants in the last 6 years. Now, are we a nation of laws or aren't we? If we are a nation of laws, what does it matter if you have a law that you are not going to enforce? Does it mean anything? The President has not executed the law for biometric exit. That is where we determine who you are, what you are doing here, and when you leave. Come legally, come across our border, but that is part of securing the border. But when it is time to go, it is time to go. If you want to stay, hey, that is great, but show up and let our government know that you are going to stay a little bit longer and what your purpose is. We don't want you to stay if your purpose is for something other than what it should be. The Congress has spoken, as a matter of fact, eight times passed a law requiring an exit system at all our ports; yet the executive branch, the one who executes the laws, has decided that is not important. They are just not going to do it. Folks, this puts us at a huge disadvantage. It makes us unsafe. We are not secure in our homes. We don't have the peace of mind of knowing that we are safe in our homes. We don't have the peace of mind of knowing that the people coming across the border are being screened for maybe diseases or criminal activity. There is a cost to that. There is a cost in lives. There is a financial cost to that in caring for people that get diseases that we have long eradicated in America that now come across the border unchecked because our border is wide open. That is why it is important to secure the border. It is important. Congress has spoken. Congress, the representative of the American people, has spoken eight times on this issue, and the President has just said: I can't be bothered. He designates Federal lands, and our own agents can't be on these Federal lands and do their job. I mean, who thinks that controlling the border and securing the border means being 50 miles off the border? I guarantee you, if you are in the combat zone securing your perimeter, your border--and the gentlelady knows what I am talking about because she has been there herself, as I have been there--you secure your perimeter and you watch your perimeter right on it, not just set up a little fence or draw a line in the sand and then head to the tent and hope nobody crosses it. That doesn't work there, and it doesn't work here. Yet that is what we are doing, and we are espousing it as though it was some kind of policy that is coherent and is realistic. It is not. Our agents want to do their jobs. They are excited to do the job, they are committed to do the job, and our Federal Government literally is standing in the way and saying: Absolutely, you can't do the job. We can get some assistance from our State and local, our National Guard, too. I have served on that mission as well. There is a lot of opportunity there to divide the duties and the resources and make this work that is cost effective. There is a lot of expertise from a military standpoint that can be used legally to help secure our borders, but, here again, the President can't be bothered. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable. We need to keep track of these individuals with radical views. If the President had enacted the biometric requirements that have been required by the United States Congress eight times, maybe the Tsarnaev brothers wouldn't have had the ability to come to Boston and blow up people during the marathon. But we will never know because they just come and go as they darn well please to our country, and we don't ask anything. How is that securing the country? How is that good for America? Mr. Speaker, thanks again to the gentlelady for hosting this. This is an incredibly important subject that we need to be discussing, and it is great that we have some time on the House floor to discuss this. I hope what this does is it kind of gets the people that are watching this to say: Huh, maybe there is something to this. Maybe I should call my Representative. What does he or she think? How would he or she vote on such a border bill? Is there something missing in the bill, and is there some reason they wouldn't support the bill, and what is that? What would I like, as an American, to see about my border? Should we be letting anybody that darn well pleases come across the border unchecked to come into my community and do whatever they would, take my job, harm my family, or do I want something more as an American? Where does my Representative stand? I think it is a great opportunity to call your Representative, write your Representative, email, talk to his staff and say: What does my Representative think of this? So I appreciate the opportunity. I appreciate your leadership. I know, I have been to where you live.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind everybody about a real-life story of being outnumbered 10 to 1, a story of courage, will, discipline, suffering, immense sacrifice, and success, a tale of two great militaries, surprise, weather, overwhelming force, and sheer resolve. It is marked with the graves of thousands and exemplifies the struggle for the very future of freedom in our world. The story ends with the 101st Airborne and Patton's Armor being victorious in January and February of 1945, and I think it is important to recognize the accomplishments of all the units who struggled and suffered greatly under the German siege of a small town in Belgium named Bastogne. This January and the recent December marks the 70th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. Most people know of the 101st Airborne, nicknamed the ``battling Bastards of Bastogne,'' and the plight of Patton's Armor, as chronicled in so many stories and movies now burnished into the collective consciousness of our Nation, and rightly so. However, Mr. Speaker, on this 70th anniversary, I want to remind us of an often untold story of the other heroes of the Battle of the Bulge and the little but critical town of Bastogne. It is a story of the American soldiers of the 28th Division from Pennsylvania, who held at all costs. In late October to mid-November of 1944, the battle of the Hurtgen Forest was described as a meat grinder. The 28th Division was in a fierce battle with the German 73rd Corps. For the 28th, the battle losses were 248 officers and 5,452 enlisted men. After the battle, the weary division needed a rest. The Ardennes Forest was thick and seemingly impenetrable. It was known as a quiet sector in which the 28th could reequip, reorganize, and assimilate thousands of new replacements into the ranks while the division rested. Greatly weakened by the previous battle, the 28th Division was spread out over some 25 miles along a front which was more than double that which was recommended in standard practice by any division at the time. On the morning of 16 December 1944, the peace was shattered by the opening barrage of the Germans opening up one of the largest displays of artillery bombardment ever, signaling the start of Hitler's last great offensive on the Western Front in World War II. For the next 4 days, without any sleep, often without food, elements of the 28th Division and their affiliates fought continuously, often until the last bullet and life, to deny the enemy success. It was exceptionally cold, foggy, damp, and, of course, snow covered, exactly what Hitler had counted on, as the winter would only add to the element of surprise. The German 5th and 15th Panzer Armies, 6th SS, and 7th Army attacked the U.S. 8th Army in a line between Aachen and Bastogne with a plan to go as close as possible down the seam between American, Canadian, and British forces to split them. After crossing the Meuse River, the attacking Panzers were to turn north and capture the port city of Antwerp, thus collapsing the supply lines and the alliance. The timetable established by the German general staff and German high command called for the capture of the entire 28th Division sector early in the morning of 16 December and the capture of Bastogne by the same evening of that day. Bastogne was a major road junction which was needed by the Germans for armor and resupply units. In the early morning hours of 16 December, the 28th Division received a message telling them to hold at all costs. Keystoners, as they were known, were dug in and began the slow and painful art of trading space for time, trading space for time and life. The 110th Regiment was soon surrounded and fought to the last round. From 0530 that morning of the 16th until sometime late in the afternoon of the 18th and early on the 19th in some locations, men of the 110th Infantry Regiment fought and held, giving ground only when forced out, but all the while buying precious time for General Eisenhower to find and move reserves forward from deep inside France. The other two regimental combat teams of the division, the 109th and 112th Infantry Regiments, did only slightly better. The 110th Regiment stayed in place as they were assigned the center sector of the division. The regiment alone fought elements of five German divisions, of which it was outnumbered at times 7 to 1. I must abbreviate due to time. While there are many things that come to mind when we think of the Battle of the Bulge like the 101st Airborne, Patton's Armor, or Easy Company from the Band of Brothers, please also remember the names and places familiar to those others who held at all costs: the 103rd, the 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th of the 28th. These are the echoes of the 28th Division and the men who held at all costs and traded space for time so that the 101st and Patton's Third Army could get into position in time to defeat the German offensive. Mr. Speaker, we can learn a lot from these dedicated soldiers who refused to surrender but fought on for what they believed in. I just wanted to remind everyone and to offer my salute to these finest Americans. Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind everybody about a real life story of being outnumbered 10 to 1. A story of courage, will, discipline suffering, immense sacrifice and success. A tale of two great two militaries, surprise, weather, overwhelming force and sheer resolve. A story marked with the graves of thousands, and that exemplifies the struggle for the very future of freedom in our world. The story ends with the 101st Airborne Division and Patton's Armor victorious in January and February of 1945. We must recognize the accomplishments of all the units that struggled and suffered greatly under the German siege of a small town in Belgium named Bastogne. This past December 2014 through the end of January 2015 marks the 70th Anniversary of the one of the most significant and deadly battles of World War II--the Battle of the Bulge. We must also remember the German units and the actions of their Soldiers committed to their nation's cause. We must recount their actions as well--the cause of their leadership, the unfortunate actions that occurred in those desperate hours and learn from that history so that we may never again have to re-endure them. Most people know of the 101st Airborne (nicknamed the ``Battling Bastards of Bastogne'') and the plight of Patton's Armor as chronicled in so many stories and movies now burnished into the collective consciousness of our Nation--and rightly so. However Mr. Speaker, on this 70th Anniversary, I'm reminded of an often untold story of other heroes of the Battle of the Bulge, in the little but critically important town of Bastogne. It's the story of the American Soldiers of the 28th Division from Pennsylvania who held at all costs. In late October to mid-November of 1944, occurred the Battle of the Huertgen Forest--described as ``the meat grinder''--where the 28th Division fought a fierce and deadly battle with the German 73rd Corps. For the 28th, battle losses were 248 officers and 5,452 enlisted men, after which the battle-weary Division needed a rest and were moved to the Ardennes Forest, thick and seemingly impenetrable but quiet sector in which the 28th Division could reconstitute, reorganize and assimilate thousands of replacements into the ranks while the Division recovered. Greatly weakened by the previous battle, the 28th Division was spread out over some 25 miles along a front more than double that which was recommended in standard practice by any division at the time. On the morning of 16 December 1944, the peace was shattered by the opening barrage of the Germans in one of the largest and most deadly artillery bombardments ever--signaling the start of Hitler's last great offensive on the Western Front in WWII. For the next four days without any sleep, and often without food, elements of the 28th Division and their Allies fought tirelessly--to the last bullet in most cases--as well as to the last life, to deny the enemy success. The day and night were punishing--freezing, wet, foggy and snow- covered--exactly what Hitler had counted on, as the winter would only add to the element of surprise and exponentially increase his chances for success. The German 5th and 15th Panzer Armies, 6th SS and 7th Army attacked the U.S. 8th Army and aligned between Aachen and Bastogne with a plan to fight as close as possible down the seam between American, Canadian and British forces in order to split them. After crossing the Meuse River, the attacking Panzers were to turn north and capture the port city of Antwerp, thus collapsing the supply lines and the Alliance. The timetable established by the German General Staff and High Command called for the capture of the entire 28th Division sector early in the morning of 16 December, and the capture of Bastogne by the same evening. Bastogne was a major road junction that was needed by the Germans for armor and resupply units. In the early morning hours of 16 December the 28th Division received the order to ``Hold at all costs!'' ``Keystoners'', as they were known, were dug in and began the slow and painful art of trading space and lives for time--time enough for the 101st Airborne and Patton's Armor to get into the fight, and win it. The 110th Infantry Regiment soon was surrounded and fought to the last bullet. From 0530 hours on 16 December, until sometime late in afternoon of the 18th and early on the 19th in some locations, men of the 110th Infantry fought and held--giving ground only when forced out--but while buying precious time for General Eisenhower to find and move reserves forward from deep inside France. The other two Regimental Combat Teams of the Division--the 109th and 112th--did only slightly better, and the 109th ran out of ammunition on the 18th. These scattered and battered units of the 28th Division held out in the face of overwhelming odds--delaying the Germans as long as they was by any standard a miraculous feat because of the complete and massive confusion of the Battle. However, the 110th Regiment stayed in place as they were assigned the center sector of the Division. This Regiment alone fought elements of five German divisions, outnumbering the Americans 7 to 1. Overall the 28th Division would identify elements of 9 divisions in its sector before the Battle was over. Early on, the force ratios reached 10 to 1 in the Germans' favor, but still Pennsylvania's 28th Division valiantly held its ground. Small determined units, low on ammunition, food, water, anti-tank weapons, and morale, continued to stand and fight until forced to retreat, captured or killed. The old 110th, which had served the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation since 1873, started to fight with just over 2200 Soldiers. When all was said and done, less than 750 officers and men could be found still fighting. Some unit strength reports have it just around 500 unit members still standing. The German Fifth Panzer Army was so ravaged by the Keystoners that many say it ultimately cost the Germans the battle. The Division held until it could hold no more, and it never ordered a single retreat. It was a continuous fighting withdraw under fire-- described as ``We made the Germans pay for every yard, every road junction, and fighting house by house, floor by floor, often hand-to- hand when the ammunition ran out.'' The 28th inflicted 11,700 casualties on the enemy at a cost of 3850 Americans killed and wounded, and another 2000 captured when they simply ran out of ammunition. There are many footnotes to this intense Battle: On 17 December, Allied prisoners of war were executed in cold blood by elements of the 6th SS Panzer Army. Some 100 prisoners were killed where they stood at Malmedy on direct orders from German Colonel Joachim Peiper. On 19 December, 6000 Allied Troops surrendered to the encircling German Army at Schnee Eiffel. On 20 December, the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne completely was encircled by the German 47th Panzer Corps and the US 10th and 19th Armored Divisions completely were encircled by the German advance. After holding on to Bastogne for a full week while encircled, the 101st repelled the final German thrust with the arrival of the 4th Armored Division. On 25 December, the 2nd Panzer Division was stopped by a combined force of British and American armor made up of General Montgomery's 29th Armored Brigade and the American 2nd Armored Division. 7 February 1945 marked the end of the battle where the German casualty count was a staggering 82,000 men, matched only by the 77,000 casualties suffered by the American Army. While many things come to mind when we think of the Battle of the Bulge--like the 101st, Patton's Armor or Easy Company (made famous by the book and movie, ``Band of Brothers'', please also remember the names and places familiar to the others that held at all costs: The 103rd, 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th Infantry Regiments; the towns and grounds of Clervaux, Wilt, the Clerf River, Foy and Noville; and the other units like Combat Command B, 48th Armored Field Artillery, Combat Command R, 158th Engineer Battalion, 630th Tank Destroyer Battalion, 1278th Engineer Battalion and the 299th Engineer Battalion who suffered and fought to reconstitute and support this brave endeavor. These are the echoes of the 28th Division and the men and units who held at all costs and traded space for time so that the 101st and Patton's 3rd Army could get into position in time to defeat the German offensive. Mr. Speaker, we could learn so much from these dedicated Soldiers who not only refused to surrender, but fought for what they believed in. I remind us all of this tale of heroism, tireless and selfless service, and salute these brave Americans.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. ``In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.''

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I also am proud to cosponsor this bill and thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) for his hard work on it. I think it is fascinating that we hear from my colleagues from the other side that they are so interested in how much money the Federal Government would lose--the Federal Government. I wonder who they came here to work for. Are they interested in how many dollars their hardworking taxpayers are losing by the implementation of this ill- founded law? I just got off of the phone with one of my employers in the district who has about 500 employees. It is a good, hardworking, family-run business, and he tells me, the number one issue that he is dealing with is poring over spreadsheets day in and day out, trying to figure out how he can put one employee in a place where that employee wants to work in his business because that employee might want more hours because he wants to make his own or her own choice about health care or how much money he or she has. Maybe that employee is retired, their husband or wife is retired, and they just need the extra hours, want the extra hours, but he can't provide them. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me that some folks on the other side said, just help us fix it. Yet when we try to fix it, they say, no, it is fine; it is perfect the way it is. Mr. Speaker, central planning did not work in the USSR. It does not work in Cuba. And I wish you would quit trying to place it in the United States.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, the day following the announcement of a 7- month extension to nuclear talks, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, did a victory lap. He said, ``In the nuclear issue, America and colonial European countries got together and did their best to bring the Islamic Republic to its knees, but they could not do so, and they will not be able to do so.'' These remarks are incredibly disturbing, especially when coupled with his earlier intention of building 100,000 centrifuges. The Iranian regime is essentially bragging that they are running circles around Western negotiators by achieving sanctions relief without indicating any change in behavior. The economic effects of tough sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table to begin with. We must continue to hold Iran's feet to the fire with economic sanctions. To do otherwise plays right into Iran's hands and may force our allies in the region, particularly Israel, to take matters into their own hands.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I call attention to the bravery exhibited during the Civil War by Private John Sipe during the Battle of Fort Stedman. In addition, I recognize and commend the tireless efforts by his great-grandson, Mr. Reuben Troutman, a constituent of Pennsylvania's Fourth District, who has advocated for over a decade for the consideration of his great-grandfather to receive the Medal of Honor. On March 25, 1865, Private Sipe's selfless actions in the face of grave danger exhibited unparalleled bravery while fighting at the Battle of Fort Stedman with the 205th Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers. After Confederate forces succeeded in capturing Fort Stedman, the 205th Regiment made a gallant charge to counter the rebel attack. Although still considered to be in training status at that time, these brave Pennsylvanians managed to force the opposition back into Fort Stedman, halting the Confederate onslaught. During the intense hand-to-hand combat that occurred in retaking the fort, Private Sipe displayed extreme heroism when, without concern for his own safety, he fearlessly charged the rebel lines and captured the Confederate flag. The commander of the IX Army Corps, Major General John G. Parke, recommended to Army headquarters that Private Sipe be awarded the Medal of Honor for his valor and selflessness in capturing the enemy flag. Mr. Speaker, I must explain that capturing this flag at the time was not like this game that you might have heard about of capturing the flag. At the time of the Civil War, just imagine the fire and the sound of cannonade, muskets, the screams of compatriots on either side of the line in trying to manage the battle. It was the flag, it was the guidon, it was the standard, that showed the soldiers what action their unit was taking, and without it, it would render them impotent because there was no communication. There were no radios during the Civil War, so capturing the flag meant everything; not only was it symbolic, but it had a huge purpose in determining what that unit could, would, or would not do. Although recommended to receive the award by the commanding general, according to the National Archives and Records Administration, Private Sipe, however, never received the Medal of Honor. In a process that has spanned more than a decade, Private Sipe's only living relative--his great-grandson Reuben Troutman of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania--has worked with our office and the office of my predecessors to ensure that Private Sipe was given fair consideration for the Medal of Honor for which he was recommended. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense determined this year that a lack of existing evidence precludes the award of the Medal of Honor for Private Sipe's bravery and service. Private Sipe's heroism warrants recognition, nonetheless. Additionally, Reuben Troutman has dedicated an extensive amount of time over many years in researching his great-grandfather's contribution at the Battle of Fort Stedman, and he has worked diligently and tirelessly to bring to light historical facts of Private Sipe's military record. I commend Reuben for his attention to detail, persistence, tenacity, and zeal in seeking to honor his family heritage and for a valiant attempt at obtaining recognition for his great-grandfather's honorable and courageous service during the Civil War. As a proud servicemember myself and as a combat veteran and on behalf of the millions of other uniformed personnel who have served after him, I thank not only Private Sipe, but also Mr. Troutman, for their selfless service and dedication to our Nation.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce for this legislation, and I offer my strongest support because, if nothing else, it reminds us of what the Iranian regime really is at its foundational core, what its essence is. With much of today's focus on the prospects of a nuclear deal with Iran and the potential military cooperation of our Nation with theirs against ISIS, we absolutely cannot and must not forget the unacceptable and appalling human rights abuses the Iranian regime commits on a daily basis. Just today, a U.N. resolution condemned Iran's numerous human rights abuses, which include an ``alarmingly high frequency'' of the use of the death penalty, the persecution and imprisonment of religious and ethnic minorities, and the suppression of multiple individual freedoms, and the list just goes on. Firsthand reports continue to emerge, describing how, of the over 800 documented executions over the past year, 80 percent were for drug offenses, and legal due process was almost never given to defendants. We don't even know if the defendants committed any offenses whatsoever. Also, disturbingly, in 2014 alone, at least eight people under the age of 18 at the time they allegedly committed their crimes were executed. Mr. Speaker, President Hassan Rouhani promised to improve the Iranian regime's human rights record. Really? Does anybody take that seriously at all? Realistically, the Iranian regime has only ramped up the oppression of its citizens. We absolutely must remain clear-eyed when dealing with this extremist regime in all accounts, whether it is a nuclear deal, whether it is in cooperation against ISIS, and certainly when it comes to their human rights violations.

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.