Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, given the geopolitical history of the region, the U.S. fully understands Israel's need to be better armed than its neighbors. Potentially threatening Arab countries surrounding Israel have superior numbers, which is the reason why Israel needs to maintain a qualitative edge. As Iran creeps ever closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, this qualitative edge has become all the more important As our closest ally in the region, we should do all we can to prevent Israel from being put in harm's way. I believe the legislation before us today does precisely that and I thank the gentleman from Georgia and my colleague on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Collins, for authoring this bill. This legislation improves our policy of ensuring Israel's safety by better reflecting the security environment of its potential adversaries. Israel is mostly attacked by unconventional weapons and those weapons should be considered into the QME. As cyber-attacks are increasingly being used as a means of warfare, Israel needs to maintain a competitive edge, while countries such as Iran attempt to increase their cyber capabilities.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, the President has offered Iran what he describes as a ``very limited, temporary, reversible sanctions relief.'' In this case, limited means $20 billion in sanctions relief. What was the world promised for the $20 billion gift to the Iranian regime? A promise that Iran would pause, not dismantle, its nuclear weapons program for 6 months while we betray our allies and compromise Israel's ability to defend itself. Let me tell you what this deal is like. It is like going to an auto mechanic you can't trust to fix an oil leak on your car. The mechanic says it will take 6 months to fix the leak and charges you $1,000 up front. When you come back 6 months later, you will find that not only is the leak not fixed, but your car was stripped down and sold for parts. As we speak, Iranian centrifuges are continuing to spin, continuing to enrich uranium, and continuing to threaten the safety of the United States and our allies. Whether it is at your local auto shop or at the nuclear negotiating table, the American people know when they are getting a bad deal.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. I would like to thank Chairman Hastings and Mr. Flores for bringing H.R. 2728 to the floor for this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind everybody that, although they might say, Why do we do this? Why is the rhetoric important? I mean, if we don't counter the kind of alternate reality that the other side often touts, people will think that that is reality. I will remind everybody in the room that the Federal Government and every State government has said that there has been not one accident--zero-- referring to the aquifer regarding hydraulic fracking--not one. People in Washington have never been to Dimock; they have never been to Renovo or to Tidioute or to Warren, Pennsylvania. They don't know anything about these places and what happens here, but yet they want to regulate us. The people who live there are the ones who are working there, and they have the greatest stake in protecting the environment. Let me tell you what it has done for Pennsylvania: $750 million in road and infrastructure and improvements since 2008 has been provided by the gas industry. The average income is up $1,200 because of it; $1.8 billion in tax revenue has been generated by responsible shale development.

Mr. PERRY. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, the Pennsylvania Historic Museum Commission, and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Council. Finally, Mr. Chairman, all of those chemicals that were noted on every job site are listed on a material safety data sheet, which is required by law.

Mr. PERRY. Ninety-six percent of the employment comes out of the Appalachian basin. That is in Pennsylvania. That is where we live. There has been a $650 savings per household per year because of it, and there are 232,000 associated jobs with an average pay of $83,305 a year. Mr. Chairman, there is a list of agencies that these people must comply with for every single portion of this. I am going to run out of time, but I am going to run out of time just going through them, all right: the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the County Conservation District.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was visited today in my district office by an individual who is one of my constituents--and one of my bosses--who told me about his disappointment with me and our government here in Washington and our inability to positively affect his life. He told me a story about how he and his wife lost their health care policy. What is worse, he told me about his diagnosis of cancer, which has wracked his body and is spreading throughout his organs. He told me how he felt Washington didn't care at all about him and how he had been lied to. He wanted someone to fight for him and the other people in the middle class. I just wanted to come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, and echo that account so that he knows that someone is here fighting for him. I dedicate myself to fighting on his behalf and for the other millions of Americans just like him.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 2655--Motion to Recommit; I was off-site and my staff was unable to contact me regarding the vote due to a inoperative telephone. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am exceptionally privileged to be here on the House floor of the United States Congress this evening to speak on behalf of my constituents and in front of the Nation. It is an honor that few people realize, and it's worthy of mention. I just want to also thank the fine gentlemen and ladies from the other side that were here this evening. I appreciate your impassioned pleas. That's what this place is all about. I might disagree with many of them, but I appreciate your passion and your willingness to serve. I just want to talk about a couple of things and, at least from my side, Mr. Speaker, set the record, or at least kind of balance the record--maybe not set it straight in some people's minds because I'm sure some folks will disagree. But when the one gentleman said that he opposed the Iraq war and folks were here paying for it with a credit card and he was opposed to that, well, I wasn't here. So I can't really atone for the sins of the past, and there's a good chance that I would disagree with many of them, but one of the reasons I wasn't here was because I was in Iraq at that time. And even though I think it is morally wrong to have spent this Nation into such debt over those conflicts, when you are attacked, you must respond, number one; and, number two, I think it kind of belies the fact that the current administration has nearly doubled that spending in half the time. So with all due respect, I think it's fair just to point that out. And regarding another gentleman who talked about the interest of the other side to negotiate and agree to a compromise and to compromise, in looking at the numbers, the sequester came from the President of the United States out of another supercommittee that was created, and the President demanded the sequester, demanded the number. So this Congress has given it to him, and this Congress has held that number. It was demanded out of that negotiation. So by saying that they've compromised, they haven't compromised on anything. That's where we all agreed to be at the end of that negotiation. Now, there's been a lot of impassioned talk and yelling and wailing, and I don't really think that's helpful to the narrative here. We're all going to have to work together at some point and figure this thing out, and blaming one side or the other side, I just don't know where that really gets us. I want to just talk a little bit about some of the facts. And these aren't my facts; they're not Scott Perry's facts. I've got The Washington Post here, because some people say this is unprecedented, it's never happened before, and only one party does this. Well, there was a shutdown in 1976. Gerald Ford was the President. The Democrats held both Houses. It was ended by all sides coming together and working towards a continuing resolution. The next one was in 1977. Jimmy Carter was the President. Democrats held both Houses. Amazingly, it was resolved by both sides coming together and working on a Medicaid ban. Then there was the shutdown of 1977. Jimmy Carter was the President. Democrats were in charge of both Houses. They signed a temporary bill because they came together and worked something out. The 1977 shutdown under Jimmy Carter, Democrats were in charge, and they were doing what they thought they needed to do. They're elected by their people to do the work of this House, but they came together after 8 days and they resolved it. The next one, 1978. Jimmy Carter was the President. The Democrats controlled both Houses. Eighteen days--eighteen days--but they resolved it after they got together. The President, the Senate, and the House, they got together. 1979, Jimmy Carter was the President. The Democrats were in charge of both Houses. Eleven days. What resolved it? They got together and they talked. Nothing happens here, and nothing will happen here, if we're not going to be willing to be civil with one another and get together and talk. 1981, Ronald Reagan was the President. The Republicans had the Senate. The House was controlled by the Democrats. After 2 days, they resolved it. Again, Reagan came down and signed a bill extending the current spending limit. And then again, in September of '82, Ronald Reagan was the President. Republicans held the Senate. Democrats held the House. Tip O'Neill was the Speaker. But they resolved it in just 1 day because they got together. Both of them were out that evening having fundraisers, both parties. They let the government shut down, but they got together and moved beyond it. 1982, Tip O'Neill again the Speaker. Republicans were in charge of the Senate. Ronald Reagan was President. Over the MX missile, they shut it down, but they figured out a way to get past it because they negotiated. And for 3 days in 1983, Ronald Reagan was the President. Republicans were in charge of the Senate. The House was controlled by Democrats, with Tip O'Neill Speaker. And they resolved it, again, over about a $100 million discrepancy. 1984, Ronald Reagan was the President. Republicans had the Senate. The House was controlled by the Democrats. Over a Supreme Court ruling, they shut it down, but they resolved it after all sides came together and negotiated. This is from not a right-wing paper in town here. These are not my facts. 1984, Ronald Reagan was the President. Republicans had the Senate. The House was controlled by Democrats. Tip O'Neill was the Speaker. And they shut it down again, but they opened it back up. The 13th one happened in 1986 under President Reagan. Republicans controlled the Senate, Bob Dole. Democrats in the House by Tip O'Neill. And they resolved it by getting together--each side gave up some of their demands--and they expanded welfare in return for the appropriations necessary to reopen the government. Ronald Reagan, in 1987, was the President. Democrats were in control of both Houses. And again, they found a way to get together on the fairness doctrine. In 1990, George H.W. Bush was the President. Democrats controlled both Houses. They figured it out and signed a continuing resolution and reduced the deficit. And then the 16th time, Clinton was the President and Gingrich was the Speaker of the House. The Senate was controlled by Republicans and so was the House. But even then, they worked it out. Even then, they worked it out. When both Houses of Congress were against the President, Mr. Speaker, they found a way to work it out. And then for 21 days in 1995, with Clinton as the President and the House was controlled by Republicans and the Senate was controlled by Republicans, again, what resolved it? They worked it out. They got together, and they worked it out. So let's go to the debt limit, because we've also heard this is a historic time, it's unprecedented, it's never happened before, Mr. Speaker. So 1970 is where we found out the practice of attaching nongermane provisions to the debt limit began in earnest. In 1971, Social Security changes; 1972, the spending cap and impoundment of powers on the proposal to increase the debt limit. And I'm just skipping because there's a pile of them here. In 1980, Congress repealed an oil import fee. President Carter vetoed the bill. Both Houses of Congress were Democrat and President Carter was a Democrat. But he vetoed it, and they overrode the veto by wide majorities, but they worked it out. They worked it out. 1985, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1997, 2010, 2011, 2012. The debt limit is the appropriate place in this divided government to find some fiscal sanity, and that's what's happening here right now in this town. Now, of course, like I said, I don't want to get into the blame game here. I'm really going to try to stay out of it. Whether we agree with ObamaCare or not is not the issue. It might be a great law. And there are other laws that some people think are great laws or are not great laws. The question really should be and really is: Can we afford it? Can we afford it? We are running a trillion-dollar deficit every single year. We take in $1 trillion less than we spend. So if you are a household that brings in $100,000, you are spending $25,000 more every single year as a ratio more than you bring in. I ask the American people, Mr. Speaker, how long can this be sustained? So even if we agree that it's a good law--and many of us don't. That's fair. But even if we agree that it's a good law, how are we going to pay for it? That's the question. Now Congress' job in this House and this Senate is to craft legislation and to determine our spending priorities and our spending levels. That's our job. The other gentleman said, We haven't read the Constitution or--it's in the Constitution. It's very simple. That is our job. With all due respect to the President, I've got to tell you, it does not help. Again, we are going to have to work together. It's for the sake of our Nation. It does not help to be lectured to about what we must do here, according to the President, when it's exactly what he would not do and did not do when he served in this building. It does not help. Now, our constituents elected us. The citizens of our districts elected us. They elected us to come here and do something, to do something. And we keep on hearing from the other side, Just pass a clean CR. Just pass it and everything will be fine. I came here to do something. We are spending $1 trillion more than we bring in every single year. We are $17 trillion in debt. The bill that's being implemented, the law that's being implemented right now is going to cost us $2 trillion or $3 trillion. We don't know. And the President, I understand--I'm not sure of the number--is going to ask in a week to raise the debt ceiling another $900 billion. So that is $100 billion short of $1 trillion, which are still all numbers that are staggering to my mind. So if we add that up, okay, so at the minimum, we're at $20 trillion, and that doesn't include Social Security and all the other obligations that we have. And the clean CR that we're being beseeched to just vote on so everything will be fine says, That's okay, just keep going. Don't change a thing. Everything's fine. Nothing to see here. Everything's not fine. The constituents that elected me had three concerns when I ran, and I hear about them every single day at the grocery store, at the gas station, on my telephones, in email, and in the letters they send to me. Do something about this debt. Do something about this deficit. Do something about this spending. Do something about ObamaCare. That's what they send to me. That's what they tell me. Maybe the world doesn't understand where this is going to end, but a lot of us do. When our dollar isn't worth anything, when we have to take a wheelbarrow of dollars to the grocery store to buy just what we need to survive, that's where it will end. We don't have to go there. We are choosing to go there. And it doesn't have to be that way. Another one of the gentlemen said, Well, we need to move on so we can make investments, investments in education, investments in infrastructure. And he's right. The world is leaving us behind. He's right. But we only have so much money. So we have to prioritize, Mr. Speaker. We must prioritize. And that's what this is about. We said, We've only got so much; and if you want to spend a bunch more on education and on infrastructure so we can compete, then you are not going to have as much money to spend on some other things. But nobody wants to make that distinction. Nobody wants to choose in this place. Some of us, reluctantly, because it's unpleasant, but reluctantly we know it is your duty and so we are forced to choose, and we are ready to choose. I say it's doing nothing because passing a clean CR will do nothing to fix our $17 trillion debt and our $1 trillion annual deficits. It will do nothing. So I will go home to my constituents, to the people that elected me, and they'll say, What did you get accomplished? And I will say nothing? I won't say nothing. No, I will say I tried. I might fail. I might fail, but I'm not going down on my knees, Mr. Speaker. I'm going down, if I go down, I'll go down fighting, because I can't do nothing. I don't want to see a government shutdown. Nobody in this place wants to see it. It's not good for this side, it's not good for that side, it's not good for the American people. It is not good. We acknowledge that. But why should anyone believe the concerns about debt and deficit will be discussed when they haven't been discussed in the 5 years? And to be clear and to be honest, they haven't been discussed really ever. Republicans, Democrats, nobody wants to touch it. I've got a mother on Social Security, Medicare. I don't want to see her out on the street. I will take care of my mother. That's what we do in our family. We will not let that happen. But some people don't have that option. I don't want to see it go bankrupt. But right now, Social Security Disability, that portion of Social Security, the last report I saw, will be bankrupt in a year and a half. In a year and a half. Social Security, 10, 15 years behind it. Medicare, Medicaid, bankrupting our Nation. And we're doing nothing. We're doing nothing. We can't do nothing. And so we must discuss it. We must get to the issue. So we can't agree to this thing where the other side says, just pass it. Let us spend as much as we want to, and we promise you that we'll come to the negotiation table and talk to you about the things that are important to you. With all due respect, they haven't been important enough in the last 5 years or the last 20 years; and so we have no reason to believe, I have no reason to believe that they will. And those who say that one side is doing this for partisan reasons, for political gain, I ask, what political gain? What is the upside? What is the upside for me, any of us? There is none. The Representatives in this body who disagree with passing a clean CR are putting themselves at peril for love of country and love of the future. I've got two little girls, two little girls that I'm desperate to have the same opportunities that I had. When I grew up, our house didn't have electricity. We didn't have running water. My parents were often unemployed. Me and my brother ate some strange things just to eat because we didn't know any better. We did okay. And we made a life for ourselves, but we had an opportunity in America. But that opportunity is going to slip away from us because of the way we are handling our fiscal house. Look at what will happen if we continue without adjusting course. I would argue that the first people that would lose their jobs under this situation are government workers. When we can no longer borrow from the Chinese, when we can no longer borrow from ourselves, Social Security, the Social Security trust fund, part of that $900 billion that they're going to ask us to raise the debt ceiling so we continue to borrow is coming out of the Social Security trust fund. Who agrees with that? I don't know one American that says that's okay. And somehow this is the only place in the world where it would be okay. But government employees, just like in Greece, when they ran out of money, when they ran out finally, the first ones to go--not for a week, not for a couple of days, gone. The job is gone. You are no longer working. You have no job. There's nothing to come back to. We don't have to do it. We don't have to. We can make a choice now. We're saying turn the ship around on a dime. We're saying turn the wheel a little bit, just a little bit, and let's start heading to the course of correction. But voting for a clean CR says just keep going, just keep going. Don't worry about the torpedos, don't worry about the iceberg, just keep going. So just like in Cyprus, we'll come home to find out the banks under Federal control and Federal order will have removed the money from our savings account. They'll just do it. That's what they did in that country because they ended up where we're going. Why would we do it? Now, those who say they want a clean CR, they are patriots. I know that. They are hearing from their constituents. I've had constituents come in, crying, literally crying in my office, and we talked about the situation. Those folks that want a vote on a clean CR, they are patriots too. They want to fix it; they just want to do it now. But I would say that it is time to do the hard right because for too long the easy wrong has been done. I don't know when they want to do something, but I want to do it now because I don't think we can wait. Now, we have offered our ideas and we have asked for their ideas. We have offered them. We understand and respect the other side disagrees with our solution. We had four votes in this House before this government shut down, four bipartisan votes. People on both sides of the aisle voted four times for something. But the Senate disagrees. The President disagrees. I respect they disagree. I respect that they don't like our solution. It is their prerogative, and maybe it's their duty. All we're saying is okay, fine. You disagree. I get it. What's your idea? What's your solution? The solution should not be nothing. The solution from them has been no. Now go about your business and come up with what we want. It just seems like not negotiating--if I had a fight with my wife, if I had a dispute with my daughter, I never want to go to bed angry at my family, and I never want my family to go to bed angry with me. Before the day's done, we're going to sit down at the table, and we're going to talk about it. We might go to bed a little sore with each other, but we love each other and we love this country, and so it's imperative that we stay with each other to work through it. We understand and respect the other side. We understand that they don't want to do anything with ObamaCare, but ObamaCare adds $2 trillion to $3 trillion to our national debt. So if you don't want to do anything about that, fine. What do you want to do? That's all I'm asking. That's all we're asking. What do you want to do? Some say, well, you need to raise taxes. ObamaCare raised taxes; I think it was the largest tax increase in history. Okay. So we did that. And that wasn't enough, so just last December, when I wasn't here, another $650 billion in taxes on an economy that's struggling to get through, 1 to 2 percent growth. We're choosing this, and I don't think we have to. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that we're taking in more tax revenue right now, right now, than ever before in history? There's more money coming in now than ever before, and we're $1 trillion apart every year. I mean, how much more can we take? Should we just take it all? I mean, that's another form of government. It's been done. It doesn't work out real well. Well, some will say, well, cut the military. Well, this place cut the military about $1.2 trillion over the last year and a half. And for me, the Constitution says provide, it uses that word, provide for the common defense, Mr. Speaker. The line below it is promote the general welfare. Words mean things. We have a duty to provide for it. Certainly, there are inefficiencies. I've been in the military. I've served, and I know they're there. And it's right to take a look. Everything needs to be on the table. But how much more, and how much do we enfeeble ourselves and disable our ability to do our constitutional requirement, which is to protect the citizenry? It is our requirement. Now, we passed a bunch of bills in the House here; and, to tell the you truth, I kind of like it. We're moving towards the CR one piece at a time, so I don't have to vote for things that I don't think we should spend money on for the sake of the things that we must spend money on. Mr. Speaker, it's not optimal, but it's a way to get there. But, like, for cancer research for kids, we passed that out of the House, and the leader of the Senate says, when asked, well, why won't you pass it? He says, well, why would we want to do that? My goodness, why wouldn't we want to do that? That's where we have consensus. We have some consensus. And another gentleman questioned why Congress has the right to pick and choose what gets funded. Isn't it astounding that someone in the Senate doesn't understand that not only is it the right of Congress to do that, but it's our duty. That's what we're here to do. That's what we're supposed to do. We have offered numerous ideas. The Senate says no. They don't say no--but. They just say no. Refusing to negotiate is, to my mind, irresponsible. I mean, I don't know if they're here for themselves or the greater good of Nation when I hear reports--I don't know if they're true--but they're reported in the newspapers that the park rangers are told make it as difficult as possible. And when I see the World War II Memorial, when I went out on the Mall this morning, the World War II Memorial barricaded up. It costs more money to close it than it does to leave it open. I saw a cone out on one the streets with barricades all around the cone in the middle of the street. I mean, why are we renting barricades? And on the Mall adjacent to the street that's closed because it's a Federal park area, there's an immigration rally that's being supported by the Park Police. What's happening, Mr. Speaker? The Grand Canyon, closed. I guess you can't walk up to the rim and look over. The State offered to pay the bill, and the Federal Government said, no, we don't want your money. We want to close it. Is that reasonable? I don't know. It's not reasonable to me. It was The Washington Post that reported employees were to make it as inconvenient as possible. Now, some are characterized around here as being extreme, an extreme faction. The four bills that we passed to avert the shutdown were passed by this side and that side together, four bipartisan bills. And they say the House is being held hostage by a few Members. I don't know. Bipartisan votes on both sides seems less than extreme to me. And I've got to ask, since when are Americans who want to see the government act within the constitutional bounds, that is, the House and the Senate, the Congress figuring out our spending level and our spending priority, when is that extreme? Why is that extreme? That's our job. That's the division of powers. That's the checks and balances. That's what we do. That's why we're here. How is that extreme? How is spending trillions of dollars more than you have now viewed as responsible? How is talking about trying to save some money and be responsible with the taxpayers' money on our future, how is that seen as extreme? Why is it okay to think that spending that money is okay and acceptable to most Americans? Who gets away with that kind of behavior in their own households? Well, you do, but not for very long, I guess. With that I'd like to yield some time, if I could, to the fine gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. PERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. We're talking this evening about a continuing resolution, continuing to fund our government. I find it odd that the other side is complaining about our plan, yet their plan is pass it clean. That's the Senate and the President: Pass it clean. I'm not going to negotiate. Pass it clean. We're $17 trillion in debt, spending an average of $1 trillion more in the last 4\1/2\, 5 years than we take in. And so the answer is just continue. That's a plan. So we've offered a plan. And we get it; we get it that you don't like it. We don't like your plan, but we're here trying to compromise, and this amendment is part of that compromise. Yet you say work with us to make ObamaCare better, Mr. Speaker. Work with us. Yet on this, you want to complain. We're saying work with us to make the CR better. Make sure our troops and contracts, kinetic activity, are paid. Make sure that we take care of the one thing in the Constitution, the one thing that says ``provide''--because words mean things, Mr. Speaker--``provide for the common defense.'' ``Provide.'' The other phrase is ``promote.'' So we're here to make and set priorities. So we're saying as the House of Representatives, paying our military is a priority, as it should be. Mr. Speaker, I have embarked with those soldiers, men and women overseas, and watched them leave their families, watched them leave their babies behind. I have watched them. Theirs, as we say, is not to question why; theirs is to do and die. Please work with us. Please do not argue. Please join us and pass this amendment.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. I would like to thank the gentleman from Tyler, Texas, for yielding to me. I would just like to talk about what many Americans hear talked about in Congress but maybe can't put a face or a name to, and that is access to care. What does that mean, ``access to care''? And our claim is that ObamaCare reduces access to care. ``Access to care'' is your ability to have a doctor take care of you or some kind of practitioner take care of whatever your health care need is. I think it's important that we show examples of that. So, as of right now, on January 1, thousands of Americans are at risk of losing their lifesaving dialysis treatments which they need to survive. We're not talking about, I need to have my bunions reconfigured. We're not talking about, I've got a skin tag or I have an upset stomach. We're talking about dialysis. People who are on dialysis must have it on a regular basis to live. I visited a dialysis clinic with 25 machines that operate 6 days a week in the Fourth Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, 6 days a week, 25 machines, all day long people come in, and it serves primarily the underprivileged population of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which is the capital. That's its primary clientele. And the gal there that was running the place told me that on January 1, if ObamaCare continues to go through, they will cut their operating hours from 6 days to 3, 3 days a week from 6. So those 25 machines will be idle half the time that they're currently being used. That's 50 percent. Now, Medicare payments already fall very short of covering the entire cost of this, but this clinic makes up the difference by the other paying customers. And I would ask the folks that support ObamaCare, do they really think that the rich in this Nation are going to go without access to care? We've heard about concierge medicine. The rich are going to continue to receive care one way or another. But it's the poor, it's really the abject poor that are going to suffer under this. I just want to put some names to this. I met a Vietnam veteran named Johnny. You know, people think, Oh, if you have dialysis, you've got diabetes. You didn't take care of yourself. This man is fit, doesn't smoke, and does take care of himself, but he just happens to have diabetes. And he comes into this clinic, and he needs to come in more than once a week. So when you go from 6 days to 3 days, Johnny is going to have to look for some other way to get his dialysis. And then there's Amy. Amy comes in a couple times a week and hooks herself up. She comes and knows it so well that the people there that are actually administering the service and the care don't have to do that work for her. She comes in and takes care of that herself so she can literally stay alive. And then there's Chris, 34. People think, Oh, if you need dialysis, you didn't take care of yourself. You are an old person who didn't take care of yourself. Chris is 34 years old. When you go to dialysis, it's 4, 5 hours, sometimes, and more in the chair. That's a day away from work, away from family. And it's hard to sustain employment when you are gone 4 or 5 hours a day, two or three times a week to stay alive. But that's what these people must do. Chris supports himself. He is a chef in a local restaurant. He has got type 1. He's had kidney failure. So he's going to have to find another place to get his dialysis, because this place will no longer be there. So that's what ``access to care'' means, and that's putting a face and a name to it; and that's what ObamaCare is going to do in the community that I represent, literally taking this lifesaving care away from people. I would urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to really take a look at the upcoming votes both in the Senate and in the House regarding this bill, regarding this law. It is not ready to roll out. There are significant failures of it and shortcomings. We understand it was laudable trying to find a way for every American to receive care. That is a laudable goal, and we support that. We have a plan here in the House of Representatives. We would like the plan to be aired, but none of that is going to happen. None of that is going to happen if ObamaCare is fully implemented as is planned for in the upcoming days. None of that is going to happen. And these people that are receiving their dialysis on the west shore in the Fourth District of Pennsylvania are going to have to find some other way, literally day by day, to stay alive thanks to ObamaCare.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise again to sound the alarm about the train wreck that is ObamaCare. Yesterday, we learned that the world renowned Cleveland Clinic will cut 5 percent to 6 percent of its $6 billion budget and cut jobs to prepare for ObamaCare. The report said that they will cut at least $330 million from their annual budget. Madam Speaker, I don't represent Cleveland, but I'm concerned about every single American job. At a time when we have the lowest labor- force participation rate in 35 years, does the President really want to encourage needless job loss? The Cleveland Clinic accounts for nearly 8 percent of the economic output of northeast Ohio, and we've got to wonder if sticking with a failed policy that puts these hardworking people on the street needlessly is the best we can do. Madam Speaker, this is devastating Cleveland now, and it's going to happen in the district I represent and all other Members' districts tomorrow and in the days to follow. This isn't a partisan issue. This is an American issue. These people, they're not wondering and worried about whether they're registered Democrat or Republican. They're worried about how they're going to pay their bills, their mortgages, and education for their children. It is no way to live, and it is unnecessary. Madam Speaker, we cannot afford to lose any more jobs because of a well-intentioned and failed policy that is ObamaCare. We need to stop this train wreck now before it costs any more American jobs.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, Under Secretary Kennedy made this statement at the House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting today: The Department has demonstrated an unprecedented degree of cooperation and engagement with the Congress on these issues, especially following the attack in Benghazi. To date, the Department has provided to the Congress the classified ARB report and more than 25,000 pages of documents. Secretary Kerry, testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in April, also pledged coordination with the Benghazi investigation when he stated: I'm determined that this will be as accountable and open State Department as it has been in the past and we will continue to provide answers. So the question I have for each of them is this: Why do I have to hold in my hands a handwritten transcript of an email? Why is it that congressional investigators must hand-copy them under supervision from the other side, so to speak? Why can't we get the documents and copy themselves? Why must we subpoena everything? And why are they not in compliance with any of the subpoenas?

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Well, there's been some conflicting reports between, again, open source, between the rebels, and then he went to the hospital and was picked up by some of the folks from Tripoli; but then he wasn't there, and they--there's nothing congruent in that. I'm not sure the custody, the chain of custody regarding the Ambassador's body. We're pretty sure we know what happened to it, and it's very unpleasant. But again, without an autopsy we can't even be sure of that.

Mr. PERRY. I would like to pose a question to you based on what you've seen regarding Syria and Benghazi and Libya, the classified briefings and your travels. This administration reported to us that Syria had used chemical weapons 11 times previously. On the 12th time, we want to send a message that that's not okay--and it's not okay, let's be clear about that. But why didn't we send a message and why haven't we sent a message that it's not okay to kill a United States Ambassador? When is that message going to be sent? I would just like to get your thoughts on that and the dichotomy and the lack of parallel in some kind of strategy and foreign policy that is congruent and makes sense to our allies and our adversaries.

Mr. PERRY. I would ask, Mr. King, we were told that there wasn't adequate time, that reinforcements and help were too far away. How did the administration know how long this was going to take, how long this attack was going to go on for? Because when the calls came from the Ambassador, it was hours and hours later until he perished, until others perished. During that period of time, we could have sent people on the way. Maybe they would have never gotten there in time, and maybe that's still a failure in planning, but I think the American people could forgive the mistake with the effort. But the effort wasn't made at all. And I wonder who made the determination that this is going to end in 2 hours or 3 hours or 10 hours or 10 minutes and said, No, we're not going to send anybody because it's going to be over. How did they know that? I would suggest they never knew that because they never had any intention of sending anybody because they never had any plan. They never expected this, they never wanted this, and they hoped it would go away quietly into the night. That's what I would suggest.

Mr. PERRY. Well, you are absolutely right, Mr. King. As you already stated, the American people deserve to know. Scarcely 6 weeks ago, I talked to some of the families of the fallen who have not, since that fateful day nearly--well, it's a year ago now; then it was just nearly a year--have still not gotten any answers from the administration. As a matter of fact, the administration doesn't talk to them at all. They're coming into Congress asking us to find answers. I would ask the American people: Is that how you want the people that serve this country overseas in very dangerous situations to be treated? Some of these are former military members serving in this capacity as security detail for the Ambassador, or that just picked up and went to the fight, even though they were told not to, and gave their lives. Their lives were taken from them. And this is how their families are being treated. They're dead, and their families are getting no resolution. They're getting no closure on this thing. And it's at the hands of this Federal Government and this administration. It's reprehensible. And it can be stopped immediately if they would just answer the questions that we have, that all Americans have.

Mr. PERRY. Absolutely. You must know that it takes multiple, what we call, registration rounds and so on and so forth to bracket a target, multiple iterations of firing the tube or the mortar to hit the target. I'm talking half a dozen, a dozen times, and it's very precise. So they knew exactly what they were doing. They had this planned well in advance, in my opinion.

Mr. PERRY. Well, a mortar is what we call an area weapon, so you're not going to shoot a mortar into a window. But what they fire on, they sometimes shoot long, they shoot over, or they shoot short. So they bracket it. They adjust the tube back and forth until they get it to range. But if you have a known point that you're firing from and a known point that you you're firing to, you can do that with much greater accuracy in much less time. I would suggest that they had that all figured out when they showed up, which is how they were able to deliver rounds on the target immediately.

Mr. PERRY. Absolutely. A mortar is what we call an indirect fire method weapon. You don't necessarily have to see the target. You lob the round into the target. So it requires coordination and known points of where the mortar is located versus where the target is located. You have to shoot the right angle and the right azimuth. It's not just something that's done capriciously or quickly. There's a thing called a baseplate, which holds this mortar tube. It has to be carried. It usually takes several men or a vehicle, depending on the size of the mortar. And then there's the ammunition that comes in cases. It's not something that you just carry around in your pocket. It's heavy. And you're not just shooting one, so multiple cases. Again, logistics and support for this, planning for this. Of course, like you said, the planning on multiple locations of attack. They would have to know that. They would have to know the location of where it is, of course, and where their firing point was for the best field of fire and security from opposing fire. Of course, I think the Ambassador described all this in his phone calls. Our troops on the ground, some of them who perished, lasered the target, expecting support from the United States, from what they knew. You never go without knowing who your support is going to be, what your backup plan is. These folks fully expected some guided munitions to come take out the assault, but it never came. And so there's no doubt in my mind that this was a coordinated, well- prepared attack, and there's also no doubt in my mind that the administration knew this very early on. Maybe if they didn't know it within 24 hours, they certainly knew it within the span of a week. But the misleading of the American public went on for weeks.

Mr. PERRY. Like I said, you don't just bring heavy weapons like RPGs and things of this sort to a spontaneous eruption and demonstration. Like I said, it requires resourcing, ammunition. This thing went on for hours and hours with heavy weapons. You just don't show up with a belt-fed weapon and the ammunition to support it on a whim. This is something that's heavy to carry. The ammunition is heavy to carry. It requires vehicles and people and coordination and what we call fields of fire, so you don't shoot the friendly; you only shoot the enemy. This coordination takes effort and time. It doesn't happen in a minute or two.

Mr. PERRY. He may be. I'm not sure. He may be out of jail. But I know he was held accountable at some point, and he literally did go to jail. And I would say it's arguable that he had absolutely anything to do with this or anything else.

Mr. PERRY. Denied any answers.

Mr. PERRY. We've seen no evidence. We've been given no evidence. We have asked the questions directly and been denied.

Mr. PERRY. Again, I suggest that the administration has a trust and confidence issue not only with this Congress but with the American people, and that is one of the reasons. You can't send somebody out at the top levels of government to provide information on such a sensitive issue as potentially going to war or an act of war whose credibility has been diminished by her own actions and the actions of this administration. So I think that that trust and confidence has been eroded because of prior actions, particularly with Benghazi and Libya.