Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), my friend on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, over the past year, our country has been engaged in a proxy war with Russia. We are on a path to a hot war where we will be directly involved if we don't change that path now. It is shortsighted to use cluster bombs there, to transfer those munitions. It will represent an escalation in the war that could draw us further into that conflict. I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is a good idea not to transfer these to any other country. Now, some have said to me, on previous amendments here on the floor, that they think we shouldn't be limiting our military. I want to be clear. This amendment does not limit our own military. What it says is we will not transfer these munitions to other countries. I think that is wise, and it is the prudent thing to do. We shouldn't be providing them to any other country, certainly not under the guise of world peace, because they last, as my colleagues have said, for years and years in many cases. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, sponsored by my colleague and fellow farmer, Mrs. Spartz. The amendment states that none of the funds made available by this bill may be used to carry out commodity checkoff programs. These may have started out as well-intentioned, but it is pretty well known in Washington, D.C. that this program has gone rotten, and it no longer serves farmers. In fact, we have just sent a bipartisan letter from Senators and Members of this House to Secretary Vilsack reminding him that the USDA is required to report annually to Congress, describing activities conducted accounting for the receipt and disbursement of all funds and including an independent analysis of the effectiveness of the program. Yet the USDA hasn't submitted this report since 2019. Yet, the USDA hasn't submitted this report since 2019. Since that time, American dairy farmers have paid nearly a billion dollars into this promotional program. At the same time, we have witnessed the loss of more than 6,000 dairy operations across our communities. Let me talk about the Beef Checkoff program. In 2010, an independent audit examining the equivalent of just 9 days of Beef Checkoff program spending found that the primary Beef Checkoff contractor, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association--that is right; I am calling out names-- had improperly spent more than $200,000 in checkoff dollars on lobbying and overseas vacations. Despite a Freedom of Information Act request and complaint, a full audit has not been released to the public. Additionally, this organization, NCBA, gets 70 percent of its revenue from the checkoff program. They are prohibited from lobbying, but they are one of the biggest lobbyers up here in Washington, D.C. They lobby against things that are antithetical to cattlemen. For instance, they were up here lobbying with the money paid to them by the cattlemen against country of origin labeling. They represent less than 5 percent of the industry. It is time to put them back to work for farmers. It is time to adopt Mrs. Spartz' amendment.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, as a cattleman myself who interacts with and supports thousands of cattlemen in Kentucky, I rise in support of Ms. Hageman's very important amendment, which prevents funds from being used to mandate electronic identification ear tags for cattle and bison. The cattlemen in Kentucky know this isn't just another extra expense for them. It is the beginning of the end of the American rancher, of the American cattleman. It is the beginning of the end of multigenerational farms in Kentucky because this is an on-and-off switch that will prevent farmers from marketing their cattle if they are not in compliance with thousands of rules, a never-ending list of rules. This is why we should oppose it. We should quit listening. I implore my colleagues who have been lobbied on this issue--we have all been lobbied on this one. I implore my colleagues to quit listening to the lobbyists who pretend to represent farmers and start listening to their farmers back home and support Ms. Hageman's amendment.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which states, ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to fund any grant related to any transgenic edible vaccine.'' Does the term transgenic edible vaccine sound farfetched? Well, it is not. We are funding it. In fact, scientists from the University of California, Riverside, funded with your taxpayer dollars, have been studying whether they can turn edible plants such as lettuce and spinach into mRNA vaccine factories, thereby creating a transgenic edible vaccine. One associate professor at UCR explained that ``Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person. We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens. Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it.'' I don't think this is a good idea. I don't think the American people should be funding this, and I would hope that we have learned something from the COVID experience with SARS-CoV-2 that some of our science projects aren't the best ideas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, my colleague on the other side of the aisle talks about keeping prices low. I think there is more to it than that for the American people. He also speaks as if these vaccines, these transgenic edible plant vaccines, are only used for livestock. Well, in fact, they have been used for livestock--I will get to that in a second--but they are also being used for people. That is the intended outcome of many of these programs that we are funding with money from the USDA. What could possibly go wrong with this research? Well, we found out a few years ago when a biotech company was experimenting, growing, in corn, a vaccine to keep pigs from getting diarrhea. What happened? Well, the next year where the corn was grown the prior year, the corn came up and it got commingled with soybeans that were being grown there. It contaminated 500 bushels of soybeans, which were then commingled with 500,000 bushels of soybeans. Those all had to be recalled and destroyed. Luckily, they caught it. Do we want humans eating vaccines that were grown in corn meant to stop pigs from getting diarrhea? I don't think we want that to happen. Yet, that almost happened, and it could happen. There is another case where the pollen cross-contaminated another crop of corn, and 155 acres of corn had to be burned. What are the cases where we are not discovering this? I think it is dangerous to play God with our food. I think we need a safe food supply. Mr. Chair, this is about food safety. Ultimately, the people in this country need to know what is in their food, and if we start contaminating the DNA of our food with DNA from other animals or viruses, the pollen could spread, and we don't know what could happen. I would hope we have learned a lesson from the Wuhan lab that sometimes things escape, sometimes things don't go as you plan. That is why I think it is a bad idea to fund transgenic edible plant vaccine research from the USDA. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which states in part that, ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to issue any new rule related to (1) regarding the number of owners of an animal for purposes of the custom slaughter exemption of the Food Safety and Inspection Service; (2) limiting the persons that may own an animal; or (3) requiring custom operators to keep records.'' My amendment simply states that no funds in this bill can be used to create new rules and regulations related to the custom slaughter exemption, limiting the number of people who may own an animal, or placing additional recordkeeping burdens on custom slaughter exemption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with my colleague's characterization of this amendment that it changes permanent law. In fact, all it does is limits the spending that can be used to promulgate any new rules. Its only period is for the extent of a year. The next year, the next fiscal year. In fact, were it changing permanent law, we would not have allowed it as an amendment to this bill. Mr. Chair, I serve on the Rules Committee, and we vet hundreds of amendments for this very constraint. This is not one of the amendments that changes permanent law. If I could change permanent law, would I change permanent law? You are sure right that I would, and we will try that in the farm bill, but we can't change permanent law on an appropriations bill. The reason I have introduced this amendment is I have found on the USDA website, they haven't done the rule yet, but they are thinking about doing a rule to limit how many families could share an animal. Listen, there are four meat-packers that control over 80 percent of the meat that is processed in the United States. Our President himself said it from that very podium during a state of the Union speech. It is a problem. We all know it. There is one exemption that allows people to get out from under the thumb of the multinational corporations that process most of the meat in this country, and that is the custom slaughter exemption that allows somebody who owns an animal to have it processed for themselves. It seems somewhat ridiculous that the USDA thinks they have the power to say two families can't share that animal. Yet, that is what they are proposing in a PowerPoint slide on their website. My amendment is simple. It says we are not going to allow the USDA to promulgate a rule that keeps families from getting healthy meat from their local farmer. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday, September 26, 2023, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 495 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 277, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. House Resolution 495 further provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 288, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023. It also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. House Resolution 495 further provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1615, the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act, and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. This resolution further provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1640 and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Furthermore, House Resolution 495 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 44 and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. These are five bills that may seem unrelated, but they are very related, and they have to do with the power of Congress and the fact that our power has atrophied considerably since the beginning of this country. In fact, we are almost a vestigial organ of this Republic at this point, we have ceded so much power to the executive branch, and that is how all of these bills are related. Three of the bills seek to repeal laws or regulations that the administrative branch is unconstitutionally, I would argue, promulgating. Two of these bills get at the heart of the matter, the problem that we have. One of them specifically is the REINS Act, which is very important. This would rein in our power to legislate. I don't think our Founders would recognize our form of government at this point. They never intended for the administrators to be the lawmakers; yet here we are. The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act would send every major regulation that is suggested--and I say suggested--by the administration back to Congress where there would have to be a positive vote of the House and the Senate in order for that to go to the President and then, with his signature, become law, as all laws should do. The other bill in this package that seeks to address the sort of chronic problem that we have here in Congress is the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. It is basically a repeal of a horrible Supreme Court precedent called the Chevron deference that says, basically, any way the administration wants to construe one of our laws, they can get away with it. The Supreme Court will give deference to the interpretation, no matter how far afield from the original interpretation the law was given from Congress. Finally, the three bills today that deal with individual regulations, two of them deal with gas stoves. This administration has a war on gas stoves, depending on which person from the administration you listen to, a rule that is being promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and also by the Department of Energy. There are two rules here. They would ban between 50 to 95 percent of the gas stoves on the market for arbitrary reasons. It is not clear that there would be any consumer benefit from banning these. In fact, consumers would suffer from this ban. These are the types of rules that we need the REINS Act for. They would have a significant impact on our economy, and that is why they should be here in front of Congress, and that is why we are seeking to countermand them here today. Finally, I think this is the most important rule that we are countermanding in legislation this week, and that is the pistol brace rule from the ATF. We are not talking about an interpretation of a law where the EPA says, we think we should allow this much sulfur dioxide instead of that amount of sulfur dioxide and create a civil infraction where corporations could be sued or punished. We are talking about criminal penalties. The ATF has twisted the existing statute, a law that was passed by Congress in 1934, and has magically reinterpreted it to create tens of millions of felons beginning on June 1. We have a bad situation in this country right now where millions of people have been turned into felons, law-abiding individuals who are following the rules that were set forth by the ATF. That is why urgent action is required on the pistol brace rule repeal here today, and that is H.J. Res. 44. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle is demanding to know what the power-sharing structure is here in the House, when, in fact, he will spend the rest of his time arguing that we should give our power to the White House, that the administrative branch should be making law, in fact, major regulations that have more than $100 million of impact. I would say to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle that if he is wondering about the power-sharing arrangement, then he should seek to put some power here in the House, restore the power that the Founders gave us in Article I of the Constitution. With respect to the solution to the tragic school shootings, some States have taken it upon themselves to allow qualified teachers and staff to carry firearms. Imagine that, the children are protected by firearms the same way we are protected here. Why do we sit here and say, oh, we have got to do something, when we sit behind protection and the children aren't? I would encourage the other side of the aisle to cosponsor my bill to change the default setting here in this country. The default setting was set by the Gun-Free School Zone Act, which makes it illegal to even be near a school and have a firearm, which makes it harder for States to set policies that would save our children. All it does is make felons of law-abiding gun owners. I would encourage them to look at a real solution. You can ban a pistol brace, but you are not going to stop a single mass public shooting. Most of these mass public shootings occur with a pistol, not a pistol with a brace on it or with a short-barreled rifle, as they would say, or with a rifle, an assault rifle they might call it. They can start banning these pieces of plastic, like the Biden administration is doing, and then they can move on to banning magazines. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee admitted to me last night, he would like to ban all of the AR-15s. They could ban handguns. Then they will get down to shotguns. The reality is you can't stop these tragedies with a ban. You have to change the way we protect our children. This pistol brace rule that has been promulgated by the administrative branch will cause--they just haven't been arrested--will cause and has already caused tens of millions of Americans to be felons. That happened on June 1. Time is up. You are done. You are now a felon if you own one of these braces on your firearm. Whether you own one or not, most Americans understand what is happening here. Our system of lawmaking has been turned on its head. Even more fundamental than that, people were told it was legal by the ATF. The technical division of the ATF reviewed the prototypes of these pistol braces in 2012 when Obama was the President. What did Obama's ATF say to Mr. Bosco, the inventor of the pistol brace? ``You are asking if the addition of this sample, a buffer tube forearm brace, would convert a firearm in a manner that would cause it to be classified as a `rifle' and thus a `firearm' regulated by the National Firearms Act. . . . `' ``Based on our evaluation,'' our technical department ``finds that the submitted forearm brace, when attached to a firearm, does not convert that weapon to be fired from the shoulder and would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm.'' ``. . . Such a firearm would not be subject to NFA controls.'' This is a letter on ATF letterhead, in fact, the Department of Justice letterhead, dated November 26, 2012, that millions of Americans relied on, that many entrepreneurs relied on. Now what happens? The rug is getting pulled out from under them, but not by the legislative branch. By the way, we could have repealed this. The Democrats controlled both chambers. They could have passed a legislative ban on these braces. They didn't do it. Why didn't they do it? Maybe it is because they are accountable. They are accountable to the people, unlike these bureaucrats. Nobody is going to lose an election at the ATF for promulgating this rule. The people here are scared. The people here in this Chamber are scared to do their jobs, and the people in the Senate are scared to do their jobs, so they would much prefer the administration do our jobs. What have they done? What is the penalty for owning this piece of plastic on a firearm that is connected to a pistol? I asked the ranking member of Judiciary Committee last night in the Rules Committee meeting. He did not know. It turns out it is a quarter of a million dollars and 10 years in prison. Is that the appropriate sentence for somebody who followed the law for 10 years, followed ATF guidance that was given during the Obama administration and now doesn't even know they are violating the law? Is 10 years and a quarter million dollars appropriate? I don't think so. They relied on this letter. Now, to another part of the pistol brace rule. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and the ATF Director Dettelbach have both testified incorrectly that you can comply with this pistol brace rule from the ATF by merely separating the firearm from the brace. That is wrong. That is not what the ATF rule says. Why did they say this in testimony? Why did the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee say this? Why did the ATF Director say this? Because they wanted to sound reasonable. That may seem like a reasonable solution, but it is not the solution that the ATF has put into law. Again, this isn't a fine. This isn't like saying the EPA decided that we have too much sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere so we are going to reduce emissions and set the sulfur dioxide emissions at a different level and you can be fined if you don't comply and you are a corporation. This is not a civil infraction. This is a criminal infraction that will put millions of Americans in jeopardy of going to jail. For what, a piece of plastic? Does it make the firearm more dangerous? No. Does it make the firearm more concealable? No. Does it make the firearm more deadly? No. Then I hear from the other side of the aisle: Oh, well, we are not banning them. Oh, we wouldn't ban them. Really? You are telling people in the United States you have to register them as short-barreled rifles. Guess what? That is illegal in 13 States. Thirty-six percent of Americans live in those 13 States where you can't even comply. You cannot legally comply with the ATF directive to register that pistol with that brace on it as a short-barreled rifle. Compliance is impossible if you want to keep that accessory. It is a ban. It is a de facto ban, especially on people in those 13 States. Here is what it is really about. They can't ban guns. They would love to, but they can't ban them. They can't do it legislatively. The President came into office and looked at all of the regulations and how could he ban some guns. Well, he found this one here. How can he get more guns registered. By the way, it is illegal for the administrative branch to create a registry of firearms that are in common circulation here in the United States. That is illegal. They are not allowed to do it in the administrative branch. What have they done with this pistol brace rule over there that we seek to countermand? They are going to create a registry of millions of Americans who own pistols who happen to have this brace. I would argue this wasn't just a way to ban guns with certain accessories. It was a way to do something else that is not legal, not authorized by Congress, and that is to require millions of Americans to register. To close out this pistol brace rule, I thank Mr. Clyde for introducing this resolution. It is absolutely necessary. It is very timely. I wish we had gotten it done before June 1 because now we have got millions of felons in the United States just waiting to be arrested; don't even know they are not in compliance. This ATF rule will do nothing to increase safety. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 495 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record a letter to Speaker McCarthy, Ranking Member Hakeem Jeffries, and others signed by 11 veterans and military organizations in support of H.J. Res. 44.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, as a father and a grandfather, my heart breaks when I see the victims of these deranged killers at schools and elsewhere. We need serious solutions. I think it is an insult to the victims and families that banning a piece of plastic is going to save a life--it won't--or telling them that putting up a sign that says gun-free zone will save a life. It won't. It will cost lives. When one of my former staffers was married for less than a year, she and her husband had a karaoke business, and she had a stalker who followed them to each of their events. She got a concealed carry license in Tennessee and carried her gun to protect herself from the stalker. This was Nikki who worked for me. One night, they set up their business in a bar, and the sign said ``No Guns Inside'' because they served alcohol. Nikki left her firearm to protect herself in the car, but her stalker did not leave his. He came into the bar and shot her husband viciously in front of her. She has to live with that. That is why she wants serious solutions. She knows that gun-free zones are unserious. She knows that banning pieces of plastic is not serious. She knows that children deserve the protection that we have here. We all know, if you are willing to look at the data, that in every school that has allowed qualified teachers and staff to carry a firearm, there has never been a school shooting. It is a fact. We need to work on serious solutions, not unserious solutions like banning a piece of plastic. Mr. Speaker, going to the stove ban, which is also unserious, it is going to cost consumers. It is going to make the products less safe, not more safe. It is going to make them less available. It is not about safety or efficiency or consumer benefit. It is about banning fossil fuels. That is why this administration has declared a war on gas stoves. Two of the bills in this package would repeal those rules from this administration. Natural gas, when it is used in appliances, is 3.4 times more affordable than electricity. Why is that? Let's think about where that electricity comes from. A natural gas plant can burn electricity, spin a turbine, create electricity at maybe 50 percent efficiency and then put it on wires that are hundreds of miles long to go to a household. Those wires may be 70 percent, 80 percent efficient. When it gets to the household, what do you do with that energy that came from the natural gas that is now electricity? You turn it back into heat if you have an electric stove, which is how this administration would want you to live. Guess what? That is less than half as efficient. It costs 3.4 times more to do it that way than to create electricity with natural gas and then use the electricity at your house than if you just brought the natural gas to the household. In fact, consumers who use natural gas in their house save over $1,000 a year. This is a war on the middle class and the poor. The war on gas stoves is a war on affordable heating and cooking. When the electricity goes out in natural disasters, whose stoves work? The ones who have gas stoves. Who can boil water to drink when the water is unsafe because of a natural disaster? Those who have gas stoves. This administration should quit gaslighting consumers by telling them they are acting in their best interest. The Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality has never identified gas stoves as contributing to asthma or respiratory illness. The Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency have never identified gas stoves as a significant contributor to adverse air quality or as a health hazard. Why are they doing this? It is a war on gas stoves. These two bills would seek to reverse that. It is just common sense. In fact, the other side of the aisle said these are messaging bills. Guess what? Some Democrats liked the message because they voted for these bills in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It must be a great message. It must be a message the American people want to hear. It must be a message that they like to hear because they know if we had the Senate and the White House, this kind of ridiculousness would not go on. That is why it is important to pass these two bills to protect our gas stoves. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder, since we are proposing that children would be saved by banning a piece of plastic, has anyone on the other side of the aisle proposed that Congressmen are safer now that this piece of plastic is banned? I don't think so. Has anyone proposed that gun-free zone signs would keep us safe? I don't think so. What I see surrounding me here and right outside the door are people with firearms protecting us. Our children deserve the same respect and the same serious solutions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), who is my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, to speak in favor of the rule as he did in the committee.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the other side of the aisle for pointing out that all the ATF rule does is change the legal status, that you can still get the brace and you can still get the pistol. The last thing that is on a criminally deranged person's mind is: What is the legal status of my firearm? Is this a pistol? Is this a rifle? Is it a short-barreled rifle? How much time will I get when I go on this suicide mission for doing this because of the legal status? However, what changing legal status does is it creates millions of felons out of legal firearm owners who presumed they were operating legally. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).