Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I stand here again today to speak for the underprivileged women and children who suffered under the horrible acts of Dr. Gosnell. And again, as a father of two little girls, just like President Obama, I challenge President Obama to lead in this unspeakable case. It's time for the President to finally acknowledge these acts. Mr. President, your silence on this issue is deafening. It's deafening, isn't it? When will you stand up and say that we must protect these women and children and ensure their safety? These acts are reprehensible and require your leadership without delay.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. To help commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg Address, I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1513, to preserve the historic Lincoln Train Station in Gettysburg. President Abraham Lincoln arrived at the Lincoln Train Station on November 18, 1863, prior to delivering the Gettysburg Address the following day. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Lincoln Train Station also served as a hospital during the Battle of Gettysburg, transporting wounded soldiers after the battle. The National Park Service plans to utilize this station as a downtown Gettysburg information center. The intent of this legislation is to preserve this historic site without using any hard-earned tax dollars. The legislation also expands the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include 45 acres of donated land along Plum Run in Cumberland Township. This legislation specifically forbids the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of either property and will not utilize any Federal funds. I applaud the efforts of the Gettysburg Foundation and the Gettysburg National Military Park to increase public understanding of the heritage and lasting significance of Gettysburg and Gettysburg's place within the context of the American Civil War.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. I'm wondering who will speak for underprivileged women, not only in the United States, but very particularly in Philadelphia. I'm here today to talk about an uncomfortable subject which no one seems to want to talk about. It is the Gosnell trial in Philadelphia. The media doesn't want to talk about it--not NBC, CBS, ABC, CNBC, not Fox, and not the leaders of our Nation, not the President. It is uncomfortable, and I'd ask you to bear with me while I read to you some of the testimony that comes from this trial because I feel we must. This man is charged with killing seven babies and murdering one woman. The prosecutors believe Mr. Gosnell killed hundreds of infants and destroyed the related records so we will never know. Mr. Gosnell ``induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord.'' He called it ``snipping.'' Sherry West, one of his clinic employees, testified on Monday that one newborn at the clinic was 18 to 24 inches long when it was killed: There were scores more. At least one other mother died following an abortion in which Gosnell punctured her uterus and then sent her home. He left an arm and a leg of a partially aborted fetus in the womb of another woman, and then told her he did not need to see her when she became sick days later, having developed a temperature of 106 degrees. He perforated bowels, cervixes, and uteruses. He left women sterile. The clinic reeked of animal urine. Furniture and blankets were stained with blood, and instruments were not properly sterilized, according to the grand jury report. These women are the most vulnerable women in our society, and they were, indeed, most likely at their darkest hour. They went to this clinic to seek help, and they did not know that this man was not qualified nor was his staff qualified to perform any of the procedures that they performed: There were bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses scattered throughout the building. There were jars lining shelves with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose. These women came because they were probably the product of violent home lives, where they felt they had no options. They came to this care provider, who was essentially unregulated. This does fall into the purview of the United States Attorney General because these patients oftentimes traveled across State lines. This is an isolated incident. It would be disingenuous to think that all caregivers fall into this category because we know that they do not. But we also know that if there is one, there may likely be others, and that is, indeed, sad. Prosecutors say that none of Gosnell's staff were licensed nurses or doctors and that a 15-year-old student performed anesthesia with potentially lethal narcotics. Abortions after the 24th week are illegal in Pennsylvania. However, Gosnell allegedly aborted and killed babies in the sixth and seventh month of pregnancy and charged more for bigger babies. He also took extra precautions with white women from the suburbs, according to a grand jury report. He allegedly ushered them into a slightly cleaner area because he thought they would be more likely to file a complaint. The abortions of the biggest babies allegedly were scheduled for Sundays, when the clinic was closed. The only person allowed to assist with such cases was Gosnell's wife, Pearl Gosnell. She was one of nine employees charged with him as well in this, and she has not obtained a lawyer at this time. He allegedly took the files home with him from the patients that he dealt with and then disposed of them. I would say this. It gives me great pain and sorrow to have this entered and read into the Record. But since the media outlets refuse to cover this because it's uncomfortable, because it might not meet with their agenda, and because many of the leaders of this country refuse to discuss it, I think it's important that we have it read into the Record so that this history and their stories don't remain untold--the stories of these women in their most desperate hours, and the stories of these little babies that will never know the privilege of being an American, that will never realize their dream. I would make this charge today: Mr. President, your silence is deafening. Are you so blind, are you so intractable, are you so extreme that you yourself can't even call this out for what it is, something that is reprehensible? Pro-life or pro-choice, this is reprehensible. As a father, as I am, of two little girls, it is worthy of your attention, it is worthy of your leadership, it is worthy of your direction.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call attention to legislation addressing security concerns that were drawn out in the aftermath of the September 2012 attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. As you know, terrorist attacks carried out that year took the lives, needlessly, of four brave Americans. In December, the Accountability Review Board released its findings and recommendations. This Board found that, prior to the Benghazi attack, some senior State Department officials demonstrated, as they coin it, a serious lack of management and leadership ability that contributed to the inadequate security posture at the consulate. Now, while this Board can recommend disciplinary action against State Department employees who are found to breach a duty, they also concluded that poor performance in the course of one's employment does not amount to such a breach of duty, which I find fascinating and completely unacceptable. As completely unacceptable as that is, it also requires legislation to change that. So, while I disagree that it should require legislation, it does. And with that in mind, I have drafted a bill, with the help of the honorable gentlelady from New York (Ms. Meng) that adjusts these criteria. With this legislation, if the Board finds that a State Department employee's unsatisfactory performance or misconduct has significantly contributed to a security incident, the Board can recommend that the employee be disciplined appropriately. I would ask, at this time, that all our colleagues join us in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 86, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman. I deeply care about my mother, who's on Social Security and Medicare, and my two little girls, who are counting on their daddy to make sure that those programs are available when the time comes, and, of course, for the constituents that are counting on me to make sure that those programs are available for them. So I commend Chairman Ryan on his leadership in drafting a budget that responsibly addresses our national debt and ensures that my own children and all the residents of the Fourth District of Pennsylvania are not burdened with Washington's spending problem any longer. This legislation balances our budget in 10 years. I know some folks are saying, Why 10 years? And I say, Why not ever in your budgets? Why not ever? It reduces spending and makes responsible reforms to mandatory spending programs. For the past few weeks, I've heard from hundreds of constituents, including my very own mother, about how this budget will change Social Security for current beneficiaries, and I want to make clear that the Ryan budget does not do that. It does not cut Social Security. But I will remind everybody that the Social Security Disability Insurance fund will be insolvent by 2016. That's 3 years from now. So if you're 21 years old, when you're 24, it's insolvent. If you're 45 years old, when you're 48, it's insolvent. The Medicare part A trust fund will be exhausted by 2024. This is not a long time away for young people or old people. I had to remind my mom that, if these programs were not reformed, there would be nothing left for her grandchildren, there would be nothing let for her son, and very likely there will be nothing left for her. This legislation makes those reforms responsible by allowing Medicare recipients the opportunity to choose options specific to their needs, and it repeals the President's plan to have a group of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to slash Medicare benefits for seniors, including my mom. It also repeals the President's health care law, which has placed an undue burden on our job creators and their families. Penn Waste, a company in the district I represent, has told me that ObamaCare health care costs, the Affordable Health Care law, will cost their employees a minimum of $68 a week more right now. That's a meal out with your family. That's an extra tank of gas in your car. This budget also ensures our servicemen and -women are protected by providing $560 billion for defense spending in fiscal year 2014, an amount consistent with America's military goals and strategies. This budget is responsible. The Senate budget, the Democrat budget, each one starts at no less than a trillion dollars in new spending. I urge everybody to support the Ryan budget.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, this week Senate Democrats introduced a budget that will never balance--ever. But it does raise taxes by $1 trillion, so that will be helpful to working families. The good news is next week we will have an opportunity to consider the House budget proposal which properly addresses the spending problem and makes commonsense reforms in order to pay down our debt. Keeping with the committee's theme of balancing the budget within 10 years, I've introduced my own balanced budget amendment, House Joint Resolution 36, which also balances within 10 years. We don't want to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers. That's why we require a three-fifths majority to raise revenue and the debt limit. It also requires agencies and departments to justify their funding. We are living in modern times, so it is allowed to be waived during times of war, during military conflict, or during natural disasters. Forty-nine States, including Pennsylvania where I live, do this. Single moms, families, cops on the beat, working folks do it, and Washington should do it too.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. ``The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. ``The person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person having such majority, then from the persons having the highest number not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice.''