Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. As the gentleman from Texas knows, we are allowed to bring younger constituents and visitors, and we have a visitor from Kentucky; that is true. His name is Joe.

Mr. MASSIE. His name is Joe.

Mr. MASSIE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me. This is a very interesting topic that you are speaking on, and I have never had the chance on the floor to explain my feelings on this vote nor the reason why I voted as I did on the Iran bill. So I appreciate the opportunity to say a little bit about this. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the gentleman from Texas is basically qualifying the Iran deal as a treaty, and I agree with that position. In fact, I believe I was the only Congressman to vote ``present'' on that bill. And the reason that I did vote ``present''--I just wanted a chance to clarify this--is that I felt that it was a treaty. I know a lot of us felt that way and we had different ways of dealing with that vote, but I voted ``present'' to indicate it was a treaty and that it really shouldn't have even been here in the House of Representatives. According to the Constitution, only the Senate shall agree to the treaties, and not the House. We shouldn't really have a say in that. So I just wanted the opportunity, and I appreciate the gentleman from Texas giving me this opportunity, to explain the reason that I voted ``present.'' I think it was only the second time since I have been in Congress, and it was for a constitutional reason. I felt strongly that was a treaty. I thank the gentleman from Texas for this opportunity.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an outstanding group of students in my district from Highlands High School in Fort Thomas. These students are members of the We the People team at their high school. They recently won the State championship and will compete in the national-level program here in Washington, D.C., this weekend, representing the State of Kentucky. This is the 12th consecutive year this team has won this competition in Kentucky. We the People is a civics education program that promotes teaching and learning about our Nation's history, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Each year, the program hosts a national competition in Washington, D.C., in which individual State-level winning teams compete and participate in simulated congressional hearings. I am so proud of these students in my district, their parents, their teachers, and the administration of Highlands High School for their hard work and dedication. Congratulations again, and I wish you all the best in the National Finals.

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, American companies are leading the world in development of electric vehicle technology. All we are asking for in this amendment is to enable the infrastructure to be built at no cost to the taxpayer. Providing access to electric vehicle charging stations will give Federal employees enhanced flexibility in purchasing vehicles and more options in their commute. The construction, installation, and operation of the charging stations would be covered by user fees. So taxpayers would incur no cost. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I am honored to offer this amendment today with my Democrat colleagues from California, Ms. Lofgren and Ms. Eshoo. This amendment would allow the General Services Administration, or the GSA, to construct, install, and operate electric vehicle charging stations for private vehicle use at Federal facilities at no cost to the taxpayer. In 2012, Congress passed legislation with broad bipartisan support to allow Members of Congress and their staff to access EV charging stations on Capitol grounds for a fee. Federal agencies currently lack the authority to install and operate electric vehicle charging stations. So Federal employees are unable to charge their electric vehicles while at work. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, when patent trolls use U.S. patents to game the system for illegitimate financial gain, it is much like counterfeiting because these are official U.S. documents. What would we do if we found a counterfeiter? Would we go after the counterfeiter, or would we devalue our currency to discourage counterfeiters? Well, that sounds ridiculous. That would wreck our economy just to go after counterfeiters by devaluing the currency. But that is what the Innovation Act, H.R. 9, does to patents. It devalues all patents, and it is going to wreck our economy if we pass it. Patents are the currency of invention. If you want invention to be strong in this country, you need to keep the patent system strong. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 9.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on this issue and for yielding the time to me. First, the administration went after coal. Now it is coming after wood heat. In March, the EPA finalized a new rule to regulate the type of wood burning stoves and boilers that you can buy, forcing millions of middle class Americans to pay more to heat their homes. That is why I am cosponsoring this legislation, to stop the administration from enforcing new prohibitions on a renewable, abundant, and, dare I say, carbon-neutral method of heating our homes that has been with us for centuries. If it passes, our amendment to the EPA funding bill will prohibit the Federal Government from using taxpayer money to enforce crippling regulations on wood burning heating appliances. As the price of electricity skyrockets due to the President's promise to bankrupt the coal industry, wood heat is a viable alternative for millions of Americans. Unfortunately, it seems like this administration would rather see people turn to the government for public assistance with their heating bills than to allow them an affordable means of self-sufficiency. Mr. Chairman, this is a State issue. The Federal Government should not be regulating wood burning appliances. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. I think some words from James Madison are instructive to this debate. He said: In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man . . . War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. Hence, it has grown into an axiom that the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war; hence, it is the practice of all States, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence. That was a warning that he gave us. Unfortunately, after being in this conflict for several years without an authorization from Congress, we have devolved into the dystopian condition that he warned us about. I don't think anybody in this body seeks to weaken our powers or give them to the President. What we are debating here is when to have the Authorization for Use of Military Force or a declaration of war. The time to have that was 2 years ago. It was years ago, before the President acted. To the people who are against this resolution, I say you could be right. You might be right. If this resolution fails, I hope you are right, that this resolution wasn't necessary, and we do assert our constitutional prerogative, our responsibility, and have that debate and therefore instruct the President on the reasons for this engagement and what his directives are. I just want to remind my colleagues this is a strategy, this is a parliamentary tactic that is necessary to force the debate, and let's have the debate.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. That is absolutely correct. Furthermore, the document that we viewed was a draft. It is not complete. If you read it, virtually every page of it has a little footnote that says, oh, we are still working on this page here. So, yeah, we are fast-tracking something that we can't see, we are not really going to be a party to the negotiations, and we can't control the outcome of it. So I think we should do that with great caution. I just want to close with this. I want to say that the vote today was not a referendum on free trade. It was not a referendum on whether it benefits our country to trade with other countries. We know that. We believe it. We have seen it. Trade is good. But this was a referendum on giving the President more authority; this was a referendum on voting for something we can't see, we can't verify; and this was a referendum on a huge, giant document. It reminds me of some of the omnibus bills we are given 2 days to read that come to this body, 1600 pages. But this was a referendum on the process. That is why they couldn't get the bill passed today. TPA is not a law yet. It didn't pass today, but we support free trade. I know my colleague does. We just don't support the TPA.

Mr. MASSIE. Well, you are an optimist, Mr. Gohmert, and I would wholeheartedly second that, but, look, you are also a realist, and I think we all need to be realists. The best way to keep those promises is not to make a promise you can't keep or not to make a promise that you can't make somebody else keep. So far, we have shown that we are pretty ineffectual here in Congress at keeping the President maintaining those promises. If you like the plan you have, you can keep it was one of those promises I remember. While we are talking about the Affordable Care Act, I remember Congress was told to pass it so you can see what is in it. And we are being told: Pass the TPA so you can see what is in the TPP, at least so our constituents can see it. I just want to close with this and not consume any more of the gentleman's time.

Mr. MASSIE. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we had a vote on the TPA here, and I just wanted to take some time to explain, and I think my colleague from Texas probably feels the same way. I am for trade. I think trade is good. I am not against trade, but, today, I voted against the trade promotion authority, which would fast track the TPP. I just wanted to take a second to explain why I was compelled to vote against this legislation today. First of all, like my colleague, I have read the TPP. I have been down to the confidential room. It is a very thick document, and there are two bound volumes, and there is a binder that goes with it as sort of a guide. What struck me the most about this TPP document is the enormity of it. My staff isn't even allowed to read the document. We are not allowed to have access to the Internet while we are in there when we are looking at the document. We are not allowed to take notes from the room, and this document references other bound documents. So how could I possibly--one person, by myself in a confidential room--understand what some of the unintended consequences of this trade agreement would be if I can't understand the document and if I am not allowed the resources to fully analyze this document? I want there to be more daylight on this document before we put it on a path to approval. The other reason I voted ``no'' today was the implication of ceding our authority to the World Trade Organization, which struck me this week when we voted to overturn our country of origin labeling on beef and pork. Now, whether you think we should require companies to label beef and pork when they bring them into this country from another country--whether that is a good thing or whether that is a bad thing-- that doesn't matter. What disturbs me is that the reason for writing this law this week was the World Trade Organization told us we had to. They said we have got to do that. We swore an oath to the Constitution, not to the World Trade Organization. My concern is that this trade agreement could bind us to things that we don't even understand yet because, surely, some trade agreement years ago has caused us this week to change our food labeling laws. The third and final reason I voted against the TPA today--and this may be the best reason, in fact--is that my constituents don't like it. I have received 30 phone calls a day for the past week against this. I might have received 1 or 2 all week saying to vote for it. We didn't get a chip implanted in our brains when we came to Congress that makes us smarter than all of our constituents. I think it is important to be humble, to know that we don't always have the right answer. We don't really have a whole lot more information than our constituents have in this case. I think that their concern that they expressed to me, like of the President getting too much authority and that this President does not need more authority, is a valid concern; that there is not enough transparency is another valid concern. I know my friend from Texas has expressed both of those concerns himself, and I am sure he is hearing those from his constituents as well.

Mr. MASSIE. Well, I don't want to question anybody's motivations here in this body or in the other branch of the government, but I will say I have seen a zeal for the deal, a zeal for the trade deal, a zeal for a deal that people don't fully even understand but they want to get the deal done. So I think they just need to slow down, look at the terms of the deal, get some experts in that room with you when you are looking at that secret document, have them tell you what all those things mean in there and just kind of calm down the zeal for the deal. We can do trade, we can do free trade, we can do trade agreements, but not this giant omnibus-like trade agreement. Thank you.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the American people don't want to be spied on by their own government. Our Founding Fathers included the Fourth Amendment for a reason: to require probable cause and a warrant before the government and government agents can snoop on anyone. During the 113th Congress, the House of Representatives passed the bipartisan amendment I am offering today by a 293-123 vote. This year, our bipartisan group is reuniting once again to shut down unconstitutional surveillance that does not meet the expectations of our constituents or the standards required by our Constitution. Our amendment shuts one form of backdoor surveillance by prohibiting warrantless searches of government databases for information that pertains to U.S. citizens. The Director of National Intelligence has confirmed that the government searches vast amounts of data, including the content of emails and telephone calls without individual suspicion or probable cause. At this time, I submit for the Record a letter from the Director of National Intelligence, which confirms this warrantless spying. 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 communicatons 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, as my colleague stated, my amendment also prohibits NSA and the CIA from placing backdoors into commercial products. This is important because, in December of 2013, it was reported that a U.S. security company had received $10 million from the NSA to use a flawed encryption method. Our government should strengthen technology that protects our privacy, not take advantage of it. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MASSIE. At this time, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the Director of the FBI has also confirmed that he uses the information to build criminal cases against U.S. persons, but the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI are not above the Fourth Amendment, and this practice should end. At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my colleague.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, now, it has been said here tonight that this is not the time or the place to address these problems with 702, but, look, we have a constitutional crisis, and this was the excuse we were given in the Judiciary Committee when my colleague tried to get the amendment allowed there. It was the same excuse I was given in the Rules Committee when we had an opportunity to address this, and I would maintain that 2017, 2 years from now, is too long to go in this constitutional crisis situation where we recognize something that illegal and/or unconstitutional is occurring; yet we don't do anything about it. This is the time to do something about it; this is the place to do something about it. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, Americans want to know: Where does their food come from? Parents want to know before they give it to their children: How was this food raised? Where did it come from? Moms want to know, dads want to know, and today they can; but if proposed legislation passes this body this week, we won't have that information necessary to make those decisions for our family and our family's health. What legislation am I talking about? I am talking about the country of origin labeling. In other words, right now, if you buy food and it comes from a foreign country, it must be labeled. If you buy pork, you buy beef, you buy chicken, wouldn't you want to know where that food came from? Why would you want to know? Well, different countries have different rules and different cultures. If you remember back in 2007, we had some pet food that came from a foreign country that killed a lot of pets. It was enhanced with melamine to up the protein readings in it, and it was unsafe for pets. A lot of pets died as a result. Well, it came from a different country that has different ethics. I think Americans deserve to know who raised their food, which country did it come from. But the legislation that is in front of us this week will repeal that requirement to label beef, poultry, and pork. Now, why are we doing this? Why are we in such a rush? Because we have been told that the World Trade Organization requires it. What is the World Trade Organization, and who are they to tell Congress what laws we have to pass? These judges weren't appointed by the President. They weren't confirmed by the Senate. These are not judges from our Constitution. These are extra-constitutional judges, yet they are telling us here in Congress you have got to do this or there will be repercussions. I think our Founding Fathers would be appalled at this notion, that we have given up our sovereignty. I don't accept the premise that we have to make laws here based on what some world court agrees to, but I suppose somebody made a trade agreement in some Congress previous that bound us to decisions of this court. Now, even if you accept the premise that we have to abide by the World Trade Organization, and because they have ruled that we can no longer label pork and beef as from foreign countries to inform our consumers, then you have got to ask the question: Why did we add chicken to this bill? The World Trade Organization is silent on the subject of chicken, yet it is in the bill. We are going to remove the labeling requirements for chicken. I think it is a bad idea. I think it is probably motivated by some large meat packing companies; but they are represented here in Congress, and the American consumer and small livestock farmers are not. I proposed voluntary country of origin labeling last night in the Rules Committee. I had an amendment. It said: Okay. Maybe we shouldn't mandate. Maybe we shouldn't force the foreigners to label their meat when it comes into the country; but how about voluntarily letting American producers put that proud stamp and know that it is the seal of approval that most consumers want so they know that beef, that pork, was raised in this country? I was shot down in the Rules Committee. It was just a voluntary program. In fact, it was proposed 10 years ago by this Speaker of the House, by the former chair of the Ag Committee, by the current chair of the Ag Committee, and by the current chair of the Rules Committee; yet they wouldn't allow my amendment for a vote in the Rules Committee. All I sought to do was let American farmers proclaim that their beef is raised in the United States. Today, Mr. Speaker, that is why I am here. I am here today to say that we need to assert our sovereignty, the sovereignty of this body. We all took an oath to the Constitution. We didn't take an oath to the World Trade Organization. We need to assert our sovereignty, and we need to uphold our commitment to the Americans who sent us here. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the repeal of the country of origin labeling bill later today.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to think about where the hotbeds of innovation are in this country. They are at universities, where students and professors come up with new ideas. They are at our startups, where inventors and entrepreneurs pursue their dreams late into the night, toiling away, backed by venture capitalists who fund their dreams and their ideas. But why would venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, inventors, and universities be against a bill called the Innovation Act? I will tell you why. Because the Innovation Act stifles innovation. Mr. Speaker, would you take a lawnmower to your flower garden if you saw a weed in it? I sure wouldn't, but that is what the Innovation Act does. It will destroy and degrade our patent system in this country. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Innovation Act, H.R. 9.