Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, here we are, 4 legislative days after passing a $1.3 trillion omnibus bill that is going to blow the deficit through the roof. And what are we going to do today? Oh, don't worry. We are going to fix it all. We are going to vote for the balanced budget amendment. That is right. This is going to tie our hands. This balanced budget amendment will cure everything that ails Congress. It is going to balance the budget. It is going to make us balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, there is a dictionary over here in the House of Representatives, 30 feet from me. I suggest we go in there and rewrite the definition of ``audacity,'' because it is that quality of Congress that leads them to believe that 4 legislative days after they blow the budget they can pass a balanced budget amendment and think that will convince America that they are serious about balancing the budget. That is the definition of audacity. Look, this is an unserious vote. We know this balanced budget amendment is going nowhere in the Senate. But this is a very serious topic. This is the Constitution we are talking about amending. This is the document we swore an oath to uphold, support, defend. Our Founding Fathers died for it. What is wrong with this balanced budget amendment? Well, first of all, let me tell you, it has got a loophole you could drive a truck through. Section 1, the very first part of this balanced budget amendment, says, if three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress pass a budget that is unbalanced, that is fine, but you have got to get three-fifths vote. Okay. Higher threshold. That will cause us to balance the budget. Three-fifths is hard to get, isn't it? How many? What is three-fifths? Sixty percent. How many Members of Congress voted for that omnibus bill 4 legislative days ago? 60.5 percent in the House. How many in the Senate? More than that. This balanced budget amendment wouldn't have stopped the omnibus bill. There is something worse in this balanced budget amendment. Any year that we are at war, it does not apply. Let's think about that. The first day of Congress, we elect the Speaker. We are going to elect a new one this time. We elect the Speaker. We adopt the rules. The third order of business will be to declare war so we don't have to follow the balanced budget amendment. That is a loophole right there, but it is a dangerous one. Some people say: Well, at least we will start declaring wars. We haven't declared a war since World War II. Maybe it will get Congress to do its job, its constitutional duty. Well, I don't think so. We have been at war in Afghanistan for 17 years, and this article in the balanced budget amendment says: Well, you don't have to be at war as long as there is a conflict with our national security at stake. Oh, you can forget the balanced budget amendment. What does that mean? For the last 17 years, this balanced budget amendment wouldn't apply to the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, where we have racked up trillions of dollars of debt. The balanced budget amendment would do nothing to stop that. Look, I am not against the concept of an amendment to the Constitution that limits the growth of government. This government is so much bigger than it was when our Founders started this country, and for many years thereafter, but that is not what this balanced budget amendment does. It is not carefully crafted. The thought that our Founders put into the Constitution has not been put into this document. It has not even been debated in a committee. Yet, today, we are going to vote on it. How ridiculous is that? So here is what I think we need to do. Instead of having a balanced budget amendment that encourages you to go to war, that is toothless, that encourages you to raise taxes instead of cut spending, we need a balanced budget amendment that somehow limits the growth of government. Frankly, what we need are people here that are serious about balancing the budget, not another document, not an unserious proposal. So I would just say this. I know this is a popular concept to have a balanced budget amendment. I am not going to urge a ``yes'' vote or a ``no'' vote or a ``present'' vote. I am going to vote ``no'' because it is an unserious approach to a serious topic, and it should be called ``the CYA,'' not ``the BBA,'' but I just want my colleagues to think deeply and long about this amendment. Please read it. Please read it before you vote on it. It is right here. It is only three pages. Please read it. Think deeply before you cast your vote to alter this sacred document.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, on December 31 of this year, the FISA 702 surveillance program expires. Ostensibly, this program allows our intelligence agencies to spy on and stop terrorism. However, it is a well-known fact that the FBI has used this program as a back door to our Constitution to spy on Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to reauthorize this program before December 31 without significant reforms. We all took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. We need to stay true to that oath and require the FBI to get a warrant if they want to go into the 702 database to surveil Americans.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the retirement of Judge Fred A. Stine, the Chief Circuit Court Judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Campbell County, Kentucky. Judge Stine graduated from the University of Cincinnati in 1973, and received his J.D. from the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University in 1978. He then worked in private practice for two years, until his appointment as the Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He served as an AUSA until October of 2004, when he was appointed to the Circuit Court. Judge Stine has honorably served the Commonwealth as Circuit Court Judge since 2005. His many awards and recognitions include a Distinguished Service Recognition from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a ``Special Recognition for Victims' Rights'' from the U.S. Department of Justice, the ``U.S. Department of Justice Commendation'' from the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee, a ``Lifetime Achievement Award'' from the National Black Law Students Association at the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University, and an award for ``Outstanding Contributions to KY Law- Related Education'' from the Kentucky Court of Justice. Throughout his career, and despite his busy case docket, Judge Stine selflessly gave of his time to serve his community. For example, he served as a volunteer judge for the Northern Kentucky Teen Court, and for the Newport Central Catholic, Highlands High School, and Dixie Heights High School mock trial teams. He was also an active member of the Kentucky Bar Association and the Alumni Association Board of Governors of the Salmon P. Chase College of Law. Judge Stine is a true public servant who has served his state and nation well. On behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and all the citizens of the Fourth District, I am honored to wish Judge Stine the very best on his retirement. From all of us, we thank him.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the retirement of Judge Fred A. Stine, the Chief Circuit Court Judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Campbell County, Kentucky. Judge Stine graduated from the University of Cincinnati in 1973, and received his J.D. from the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University in 1978. He then worked in private practice for 2 years until his appointment as the Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judge Stine has honorably served the Commonwealth as circuit court judge since 2005. He has many awards, which include a Distinguished Service Recognition from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and a Special Recognition for Victims' Rights from the U.S. Department of Justice. Throughout his career and despite his heavy case docket, Judge Stine selflessly gave his time to serve his community. Judge Stine is a true public servant who has served his State and Nation well. On behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and all of the citizens of the Fourth District, I am honored to wish Judge Fred A. Stine the very best in his retirement. Thank you from us all.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Sam Johnson and Ralph Abraham, for sponsoring this joint resolution. I would also like to point out that my colleague from Colorado is a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, and he has been working hard on this issue. H.J. Res. 40 would strike down a rule that was finalized by the Social Security Administration just days before the close of the 114th Congress. This rule is yet another example of the previous administration's last-ditch efforts to attack our Second Amendment rights. Any attempt to curtail the right of Americans to defend themselves and their liberty is untenable. This scheme is particularly appalling because of whom it targets and how the administration sought to implement the rule. The rule targets our grandparents, our elderly mothers and fathers who have been awarded disability benefits and have had a family member or guardian appointed to handle their finances. They haven't committed a crime or demonstrated that they were a danger to society. There is no trial, no presumption of innocence. Their names are sent to the NICS database and their firearms are taken away, their right to own a firearm. Hardened criminals don't have their rights violated to that extent without due process, so why would it be acceptable for our seniors? These men and women have worked hard to raise families, worked a job, and paid their fair share of taxes. Now they are being told that, in order to receive their Social Security benefits, they must first surrender the fundamental right to defend themselves. Is this the level of pettiness to which we have sunk? The House and the American people have soundly rejected gun control in all of its forms year after year; yet this last administration bypassed the legislative process, imposed a rule, and completely disregarded due process in order to strip seniors of their constitutional rights. Our seniors deserve better than that. This rule is not about protecting anyone. This rule should be seen for what it truly is: awful, politically motivated, and a dangerous infringement on our Second Amendment rights.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, is this impeachment resolution necessary or is it, in fact, true that Mr. Koskinen's term extends well into the next President's term all the way until November? Is that true?

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Director of National Intelligence that shows that Americans are being spied on without a warrant using the 702 program. Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC, March 28, 2014. Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Wyden: During the January 29, 2014, Worldwide Threat hearing, you cited declassified court documents from 2011 indicating that NSA sought and obtained the authority to query information collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), using U.S. person identifiers, and asked whether any such queries had been conducted for the communications of specific Americans. As reflected in the August 2013 Semiannual Assessment of Compliance with Procedures and Guidelines Issued Pursuant to Section 702, which we declassified and released on August 21, 2013, there have been queries, using U.S. person identifiers, of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign intelligence by targeting non U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. pursuant to Section 702 of FISA. These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the FISA Court as consistent with the statute and the Fourth Amendment. As you know, when Congress reauthorized Section 702, the proposal to restrict such queries was specifically raised and ultimately not adopted. For further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre M. Walsh in the Office of Legislative Affairs. Sincerely, James R. Clapper.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. MASSIE. To the judge's point, I would say that this doesn't take any tools away from those who want to investigate what happened in Orlando, none whatsoever. That is a mischaracterization, a complete mischaracterization of this amendment. You obviously can get a warrant on the perpetrator of this crime. So it would be wrong to characterize it in the way it is being characterized. It is unfortunate that my colleagues would take advantage of that situation to try and motivate people to vote ``no'' against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. It doesn't take away any of the tools. Read the amendment; you will find out. Just get the warrant; do the search. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, today my friend, Congressman Jones, and I are offering an amendment to end the DOD's involvement in and funding of the futile war on drugs in Afghanistan. In his most recent quarterly report from April 2016, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan, Mr. John Sopko, said that the United States has provided a total of $8.5 billion in funding for counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan since 2002. But these efforts have failed. They have been a colossal failure. Afghanistan remains the world's leading opium supplier. It provides over 90 percent of the world's opium today, and since our efforts in Afghanistan to counter poppy production and opium production, would you believe that their production has doubled? That is right. We have spent over $8 billion in counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan, and they have doubled their production in that period of time. If this isn't a measure of failure, I don't know what it is. Congress annually appropriates counternarcotics funds through the DOD drug interdiction and counterdrug accounts. It also appropriates drug interdiction funds via the State Department's International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account and through the Drug Enforcement Administration. My amendment would specifically end DOD funding for the Afghanistan drug war, which would substantially cut the United States overall spending on antidrug efforts there. Since 2002, Congress has appropriated a total of $3 billion, that is billion with a B, for the DOD drug interdiction and counterdrug activities fund. That is $3 billion that could have been spent here at our border on border control efforts or on antidrug efforts or counternarcotics efforts here in the United States. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, you know, in Congress, we often make the mistake of confusing activity with progress. And no doubt there has been a lot of activity--and the goals are noble--to cut off the funding for the Taliban. This is a source of income, opium production. And the activity has been there. We have spent $8 billion. The problem is they have doubled their production. Ironically, we have helped them with irrigation and better roads, their infrastructure. Something we are doing over there isn't working, unless our goal is to increase their profits, because they have tripled the acreage that they are growing of poppy fields over there. So we need to do something differently. What we are doing is not working. And throwing money at the problem will not solve it. What I am proposing today is to stop the war on drugs there. It has been ineffective. I would also remind folks--I probably don't need to remind any of my colleagues, there is a heroin epidemic here in the United States, and it is terrible in my district. My constituents are asking me, why are we throwing the money away in Afghanistan when we have the problems here? In Afghanistan, when we see no positive results--we see negative results--why don't we, instead, use that money to secure our border and prevent the influx of opium and heroin? Why don't we first focus our efforts on cleaning up our own streets, keeping our young people away from deadly drugs, versus throwing billions of dollars more away in Afghanistan on a program that has proven, by any objective measure, to be ineffective? We had a hearing on this in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and there was no evidence there that any of these efforts have curtailed the opium production in Afghanistan. That is why I am offering this amendment today with Congressman Jones. I encourage my colleagues to support me in this. Stop throwing money away. Stop wasting it in foreign countries. Bring that money back home and spend it here domestically instead for our constituents. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, our Founding Fathers included the Fourth Amendment in our Constitution for a reason: to require probable cause and a warrant before the government and government agents can spy on any of its citizens. Our Founding Fathers were fed up, and, frankly, I think our citizens are fed up with being spied on by the government. I am here to offer an amendment today that would prevent warrantless surveillance of Americans. I am offering it with many of my colleagues. I want to mention that this amendment has passed this House, this body, twice previously: once by 293-123, and another time by 255-174. It enjoys broad bipartisan support. My cosponsors are Mr. Jordan, Mr. O'Rourke, Mr. Amash, Representative Pocan, Representatives Nadler, Gabbard, Farenthold, Ted Lieu of California, Issa, Butterfield, Labrador, Gosar, DelBene, Poe of Texas, Conyers, Sensenbrenner, and Ms. Zoe Lofgren from California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate that all this amendment basically does is reassert the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All of the tools currently available to our intelligence agencies and those that keep us safe in the United States would still be available. The only thing that changes after this amendment passes is that the warrant is required to search for information on Americans. It has been this way constitutionally since the beginning of our country. We are just trying to reassert that. Let them have all the tools they have today; just require a warrant if you want to search for information on Americans. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?