Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the generosity of Representative Jim McGovern for granting us this time. I am embarrassed for my own party today. I am embarrassed we withheld swearing in a duly-elected Representative of the people for 49 days just to avoid this vote that is finally going to happen today. I am embarrassed that my own party isn't going to yield me time to debate this. Even though they say they support it and I authored it, they don't even want to yield me time to debate this during the bill debate. However, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you whom I am thankful to: these three brave women, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. They have been threatened, and they have been intimidated physically and politically--it is disgusting--not by the far left. They have been intimidated by people in our own party. For what? It is for seeking justice for these victims. So my hat is off. I congratulate them for standing strong. I have always wondered: Where were the Republican men during this battle? We have taken 5 months. These three women and I have had to drag our party to this floor today to even vote on this. Ro Khanna is the most to be thanked here. In an extraordinary display of bipartisanship, he did not hesitate when I asked if we wanted to bring this bill to the floor together, if he would stand in the trenches with me. He said yes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, and we have had a lot of good men doing a lot of nothing on the other side of the aisle until we did something. Three brave women, myself, and the Democratic Caucus, we did something. Then, what did they do? They have opposed us every step of the way. They have lied about the legislation. Let me tell you some of the lies they have told. They have said that it doesn't protect victims. Well, if that is so, why were dozens of victims with us today at a press conference, urging this body to pass this legislation? It is because this legislation specifically protects victims. They have said this legislation does not prevent the release of child pornography. Of course it does. We have a specific provision in our legislation to prevent that. They have said so many falsehoods about this legislation, but now they are going to vote for it--hopefully enthusiastically. Really, they have been drug to this. Our judicial system is broken. If it were working, there wouldn't be a thousand victims who haven't seen justice yet. They are victims of the Epstein class. I begrudge nobody's success if they become a billionaire, but if you think being a billionaire or buying politicians keeps you out of the judicial system, lets you rape young women, lets you traffic women, you have another thing coming when this bill passes. Do not let the Senate muck this up. There have already been efforts to derail our discharge petition. The Oversight Committee has released thousands, tens of thousands of documents. That is fine. Keep working. How many names have they released? Zero. They are still protecting, or the DOJ is protecting, pedophiles and sex traffickers. The time for that to stop is now. Our Speaker says: Oh, this bill needs to be amended in the Senate, and specifically, he is trying to create a loophole. He is trying to categorize the pedophiles as victims. He is saying: Oh, we don't want to embarrass the people who went to the rape island. We should protect those names against unreliable accusations. Is he calling all of these victims unreliable? They have testified to the FBI. The FBI has these names in their possession. I asked the FBI Director in a hearing: Have you looked at the documents? No. He trusts everybody who has been there for decades. That is wrong. Do not let the Senate muck this bill up. If Senators are a party to that in the Senate, they are part of this coverup that we are trying to expose. I am sorry if one of their billionaire donors is going to get embarrassed because he went to rape island. That is what they have coming. In fact, they need to be on the other side of bars, a lot of them. Some of them will be embarrassed, but some of them need to go to prison, and the survivors know that. Mr. Speaker, how will we know if this bill has been successful? We will know when there are men, rich men, in handcuffs being perp-walked to the jail. Until then, this is still a coverup. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Senate colleagues: Do not muck up this bill. The President has already said that he will sign it. That means that he will sign the bill that we have here today. Do not change this bill. He is ready to sign it. Give it to him. Put it on his desk. Let's get justice for these victims. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following proclamation Honoring Mr. Chase Crawford: Whereas, Chase Crawford, a distinguished filmmaker, producer, and resident of Fort Thomas, Kentucky, has been inducted into the International Indie Filmmaker Hall of Fame at the Indie Gathering Film Festival; and Whereas, Chase Crawford over the past decade, has worked tirelessly to amplify independent voices in cinema through projects that have reached audiences both locally and internationally; and Whereas, Chase Crawford founded Four by Three Productions, which has produced a dozen award-winning films and more than fifty comedy specials, and has served as Executive Producer on groundbreaking projects; and Whereas, Chase Crawford's film Between Mercy and Me, filmed in Northern Kentucky, premiered in 600 theaters across the United States, bringing recognition to the creative spirit of our Commonwealth; Whereas, Chase Crawford, in addition to his professional achievements, has demonstrated deep commitment to service, including his volunteer work in Eastern Kentucky, where he teaches women in recovery the skills of filmmaking, photography, and editing, an effort recognized with his commissioning as a Kentucky Colonel in 2025; Now therefore, I, Thomas Massie, United States Representative for the Fourth District of Kentucky, do hereby recognize and congratulate Chase Crawford on his induction into the International Indie Filmmaker Hall of Fame, and commend him for his remarkable contributions to the arts, to independent film, and to the people of Kentucky. Proclaimed this 24th day of October 2025.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I would love to stand here and tell the American people that we can cut your taxes and increase spending, and everything is going to be just fine. I can't do that because I am here to deliver a dose of reality. This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near term but promises our government will be fiscally responsible 5 years from now. Where have we heard that before? How do you bind a future Congress to these promises? This bill is a debt bomb ticking. Congress can do funny math, fantasy math if it wants, but bond investors don't. This week, they sent us a message. Moody's downgraded our credit rating, and the bond investors who buy and finance our debt demanded higher interest rates on the 10-year note, 20-year note, and the 30-year note. What does this mean? Very soon, the government will be paying $16,000 of interest, interest alone, per U.S. family. What are we telling them? Instead of taking care of that problem, we are going to give them a $1,600 tax break. Under the taxing and spending levels in this bill, we are going to rack up, the authors say, $20 trillion of new debt over the next 10 years. I am telling you, it is closer to $30 trillion of new debt in the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, we are not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic tonight. We are putting coal in the boiler and setting a course for the iceberg. If something is beautiful, you don't do it after midnight. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, we are told today that we are going to vote on a continuing resolution with another bright, shiny object attached to it. I feel like this legislation is insincere and unserious. Now, why is it unserious? It is unserious because we are cramming all government spending into one bill, and instead of deciding what to spend on, we are saying: Let's just spend at least as much as we spent last year and not worry about running any of these bills through committee or debating how much we should spend on things. It is also unserious because we spent 2 years uncovering deficiencies in our government. We have been stonewalled by the FBI and the Department of Justice with that familiar refrain: Oh, Mr. Congressman, that is the subject of an ongoing investigation, and it is our longstanding policy not to comment on that. They can say that in a press release, but they shouldn't be saying that to Congress. However they get away with it because we don't cut their spending every time they do that to us. If we would withhold the ink cartridge for one printer at the FBI, they would come to heel. Yet we are not going to do that in this bill, this continuing resolution. It is just unserious. It is also very insincere. It is an insult to the American people. It is an insult to their intelligence to bring this bill to the floor because it sets up a fake fight that we all know here is fake. Somebody come down here and tell me it is not fake. You all know it is fake. Here is what is even more insincere about it: The compromise has already been reached in a smoke-filled backroom here. They already know what we are going to do. It is going to be a clean CR when we get to September 30. What is the deal they have reached? It is the same deal they reach every year: We will let you spend a few billion dollars more if you let us spend a few billion dollars more. In fact, what we should be doing is correcting this country's course. We are on a course to financial ruin. I ask my colleagues: When history looks back, how will it judge you for what you do today on this vote? Will it say: Oh, well, this is a person who was unserious and insincere, and instead of making the tough arguments and having the tough discussions with their voters decided to go along to get along on the path to financial ruin or will you be one of the people who stands up and says: This is unsustainable. We must stop it. I will not engage in a fake fight. I will not be part of this political theater. Will you stand your ground? Will you be one of those people? I hope you will. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the continuing resolution with the fake shiny object attached to it.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, the Constitution of the United States of America, is the guardian of our liberties. It embodies the principles of limited government in a republic dedicated to rule by law. September 17, 2024, marks the 237th anniversary of the framing of the Constitution of the United States by the Constitutional Convention. It is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate it. To honor this year's Constitution Week, I ask my fellow citizens and my colleagues here to reaffirm the ideals the Framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties. Moreover, don't forget, Madam Speaker, the Constitution does not give us rights, and it does not grant us rights. The Constitution seeks to bind our government and protect our God-given rights. I extend my sincerest gratitude to the members of the John Guill- Polly Hawkins Craig Chapter of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution for their steadfast commitment to honoring the history of our great Nation and for hosting a Constitution Week celebration for my constituents. Continuing Resolution

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States of America, the guardian of our liberties, embodies the principles of limited government in a republic dedicated to rule by law. September 17, 2024, marks the two hundred and thirty-seventh anniversary of the framing of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention. It is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary, and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate it. To honor this year's Constitution Week, I ask my fellow citizens, and especially my fellow Members of Congress, to reaffirm the ideals the Framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties. I extend my sincerest gratitude to the members of the John Guill- Polly Hawkins Craig Chapter of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution for their steadfast commitment to honoring the history of our great Nation and for hosting a Constitution Week celebration for my constituents.

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which simply recognizes that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Our Constitution establishes a very clear framework for making treaties by the executive and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Our Constitution also establishes a clear framework for making laws that affect our domestic affairs. If any provisions of a treaty are to have legal bearing on United States citizens, those provisions must pass both the United States House of Representatives and the Senate and be presented to the President, as all Federal laws must. Treaties don't override our constitutional process for making law. Presidents can't make U.S. law by agreeing to new terms in an international treaty. Every law that American citizens live under must pass the House and the Senate. My colleagues have eloquently made the point that a President can't enter into a treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate, and, in doing so, they are standing up for the sovereignty of American citizens. They are requiring the Senate to be that portion of the legislative branch that decides what laws will bear on citizens, depending on what the treaty is. My amendment here is very simple. It says that, if a treaty has a law in it that has a bearing on United States citizens, on our domestic activities, then it has to follow the lawmaking process of the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the bulk of my speech in support of my amendment actually doesn't come from me. It is going to come from Alexander Hamilton, who describes in Federalist 75 the treaty-making powers of the executive. He states: ``Its objects are contracts with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith.'' This is the most important part: ``They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct department, and to belong, properly, neither to the legislative nor to the executive. The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign negotiations, point out the executive as the most fit agent in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.'' What is he saying here? He is saying domestic laws can't be made using a treaty. Treaties can't bind the United States to declare war. Treaties can't raise taxes. Treaties can't create new laws for us. The United States should not take part in international institutions that erode our sovereignty. Congress should not legitimize blatantly unconstitutional notions that agreements that come out of these institutions supersede the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying this: Do we believe that the Senate itself and the President, without consulting the House, could implement a vaccine mandate by merely calling it a treaty and finding another sovereign party to enter into it with? I do not. Do we believe that they could implement or impose social distancing on U.S. citizens by calling it a treaty and finding another sovereign to enter into an agreement with? I do not. They have to come to the House. Let's take the example of gun control. By the way, this is not a hypothetical. Do we think they could impose gun control on U.S. citizens in a treaty with the United Nations and some other sovereign countries merely with the advice and consent of the Senate? That would take two-thirds or 67 votes in the Senate, but it could completely leave out the House of Representatives. No, they cannot do that. That is outside of our Constitution. We are guaranteed a Republican form of government with a legislature that makes the laws that bear on citizens. Mr. Chairman, I will close with this most important part of my amendment, which says: ``If any provisions of a treaty are to have legal bearing on United States citizens those provisions must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate and be presented to the President, as all Federal laws must.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate and wish a very happy and special 100th birthday to my constituent, Mr. Oakley Farris. Mr. Farris grew up near Lexington, Kentucky. After graduating from high school, he enlisted in the United States Army and fought heroically in World War II. After returning from his tour of duty in Europe, Mr. Farris settled in Covington, Kentucky, and began working as a salesman, traveling up and down the East Coast. It was on a sales trip to Miami that Mr. Farris met his future wife, Eva. An immigrant from Havana, Cuba, Eva went on to study at Columbia University. She motivated her husband to capitalize on his hard-working and entrepreneurial spirit. Together, the Farrises built a successful real estate business, and at one point, owned over 40 residential buildings. Mr. Farris and his late wife made countless investments in our community. Many schools, medical establishments, and organizations in Northern Kentucky have benefited from Mr. Farris' generosity. Mr Farris has said he came into this world with nothing and plans to leave it the same way--a true testament to his charitable nature. I am grateful for all that Mr. Farris has done for my constituents, and I am honored to represent him in Washington. Happy Birthday to Oakley. May he have many more years of good health and happiness.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to wish a very special 100th birthday to my friend and constituent, Mr. Oakley Farris. Mr. Farris grew up near Lexington, Kentucky. After graduating from high school, he enlisted in the United States Army and fought heroically in World War II. After returning from his tour of duty in Europe, Mr. Farris settled in Covington, Kentucky, and began working as a salesman, traveling up and down the East Coast. It was on a sales trip to Miami that Mr. Farris met his future wife, Eva. An immigrant from Havana, Cuba, Eva went on to study at Columbia University. Together, the Farrises built a very successful business. Mr. Farris and his late wife made countless charitable investments in our community. I am grateful for all that Mr. Farris has done for my constituents, and I am honored to represent him in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy birthday to Oakley. May he have many more years of good health and happiness.

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE. I object.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I truly thank the chairman for yielding me time because he knows I am slightly opposed to the rule, so he is very gracious. I am concerned that the Speaker has cut a deal with the Democrats to fund foreign wars rather than to secure our border, but what I want to talk about today is process. The bill that will come out of the House after all of this is a bill that began as H.R. 815 to expand the eligibility for veterans to receive reimbursements for their emergency care. How did a bill that was intended for veterans that came out of the House become a bill that may bring us to the brink of war in at least three places on the globe by sending $100 billion to military contractors? Well, it started in the House, and then the Senate took it and stripped every word from the bill. Why did they do this? Were they trying to get around the origination clause in the Constitution? Were they trying to shortcut some process? It is one of those things. What we have got now is a collection of bills, and I do appreciate that we get individual votes on four of these bills. They include $100 billion, but they don't include securing our border. They include a bill called the REPO Act, which could call into question the value of our Treasury bills when we go out to auction those next if we are going to confiscate Treasury bills that we sold to other countries. It also includes a bill that allows the President to ban websites based on his discretion. I am concerned about that. This bill, H.R. 815, started as a veterans bill, went to the Senate, got gutted, and then became the foreign aid package bill. Now, here in the House, we are going to vote on four separate titles, but we are going to package them back as amendments to that H.R. 815. So we are actually going to send it back to the Senate as the bill they sent to us, which is the gutted veterans bill. I know this is all confusing, but why is this all being done this way? Some will say to force the Senate's hand, but really what it is going to do is jam the conservatives in the Senate who would like to have a more fulsome debate. I am opposed to the rule, and I thank the chairman for the time.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1137 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, the committee granted by a recorded vote of 8-4 a rule providing for consideration of the following measures: H.R. 7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act; H.R. 529, the Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act; H. Res. 1112, Denouncing the Biden Administration's Immigration Policies; and H. Res. 1117, Opposing Efforts to Place One-Sided Pressure on Israel With Respect to Gaza. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, under a structured rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or their respective designees. Let's talk about the rule for H.R. 7888, the highly anticipated and heavily debated Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. There will be six amendments allowed for this bill, and they break down into three different categories. There are three amendments from the Judiciary Committee that basically limit or constrain the government in its use of the FISA 702 program. The first one is Mr. Biggs' amendment. It is probably the most discussed amendment, and it would prohibit warrantless searches of U.S. person communications in the FISA 702 database. The second is Mr. Roy's amendment, which requires the FBI to report to Congress on a quarterly basis the number of U.S. person queries conducted. Mr. Cline's amendment prohibits the resumption of ``abouts'' collection under section 702. The intel amendments basically expand the FISA program. Mr. Crenshaw's amendment expands the definition of foreign intelligence to allow targeting and collection of information about illicit drugs. Instead of just being about terrorism, it will expand the program to include illicit drugs. Mr. Waltz' amendment expands the use of section 702 by allowing it to be used to vet foreigners traveling into the United States. Mr. Turner's amendment expands the definition of ``electronic communication service provider'' under section 702. We will have a full and robust debate on those amendments after this rule passes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), in his appointment as the new chairman of the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.