Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding. I find it somewhat ironic that the other side is complaining about the process during the debate on the amendment that the other side gets to offer by virtue of a decision in the Rules Committee to open up this process. So this is the process. The gentleman from Indiana is correct. It is not a given; it has not been established that the CDC has this authority. There is no need for us to legislate beyond the intent of this bill. The intent of this bill is to eliminate a Presidential order about a COVID vaccine for international travelers. There is no need for us, in this bill, to try and give the CDC additional authority. In fact, the bill is quiet on whether they have this authority, and that is a subject that is being debated in the courts right now. I also want to point out that the order, as well as the gentleman's amendment, doesn't apply to immigrants. The order that the President has put in place on visitors doesn't apply to illegal immigrants to this United States, and neither would this gentleman's amendment. So I think when you talk about science and logic, why is it that somebody who is coming here legally would be more of a threat than somebody who is coming here illegally? So I urge a ``no'' on the amendment, and a ``yes'' on the bill, but mostly, certainly a ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. The U.S. should be leading the free world right now but, instead, we are falling behind. Hundreds of countries have a vaccine policy that is more liberal than the United States at the moment. If you live in Japan, Italy, Spain, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Israel, Germany, France, Australia, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil, Taiwan, Mexico, all of our neighbors to the north and to the south, to the east and to the west have gotten rid of their COVID vaccine mandates to enter their countries, but we have not. Why is that? What is our policy right now? To enter into the United States, if you are a foreigner, you have to have a COVID vaccine. Who can enter right now without a vaccine? Well, if you are an illegal alien apprehended at the border and awaiting a trial or a hearing, you don't need a vaccine; just come on into the country, we will check it out later. What if you are somebody who comes in and you have been vaccinated, but you have got a full-blown case of symptomatic COVID? Oh, you are vaccinated? No problem. Come on in. Bring your new variant, whatever it is. We will welcome you. If you are a healthy tennis player who has not been vaccinated, then stay out of our country. That is the message that we have been sending. Our policy is at least 2 years out of date. The U.S. Travel Association recognizes this. They said that every day this policy remains in place encourages some travelers to avoid the U.S., costing us valuable visitor spending and delaying our efforts to re-ignite inbound travel. So our economy is suffering. But that is not really what compelled to me to offer this bill. I am concerned about the families who have been separated for 3 years; children who haven't seen their parents; spouses who haven't seen each other, separated for 3 years. There is no religious exemption in the vaccine mandate policy that the United States has. In fact, there are dictatorships that have better policies than ours right now: Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, Syria; oh, not vaccinated? Not a problem because they recognize at least the science behind it. Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule. During the debate, we are going to allow three amendments from the Democrats on my bill, and we are going to allow two Republican amendments. I think that is very kind of us. We didn't see this kind of openness and legislative deliberative process when the other party was in the majority. Think about this as I close: Today, later in this Chamber, there will be over 1,000 people, sharing the oxygen, the air in this room with the President and the Vice President of the United States, and none of those thousand people that will be in this room have been mandated to take the vaccine. So when you think about casting your vote on this, just consider for a second: Are you being a hypocrite? None of your staff and none of the Members of this legislative body, or the Supreme Court, or the Senate who are going to join us here later today with the President, none of them have been mandated to take the vaccine. We shouldn't do the same. We should not project xenophobia from this country. We should allow visitors; we should reunite families; and we should re-ignite our economy by eliminating this policy. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible what the other side of the aisle is saying. They said this bill was rushed to the floor. Do you remember when this was invoked, the National Emergencies Act? March 13, 2020. After that we were told 15 days to slow the spread. How many days are we up to? Does anybody over there know? It is over 1,000 days. What has happened in that period of time? How did we get to this position? The law that Congress passed that was invoked by the former-President and extended by this President, the National Emergencies Act, requires at least every 6 months you vote on whether to extend it. We did not follow the law under the former Speaker. They used the Rules Committee to prevent this bill from coming to a vote and then the claim that the Senate would need time to deal with this. The Senate has already passed this. The bipartisan Senate passed 61 to 37. I expect there would have been a lot of votes here but the President came in to try to save their skin. The gig is up, but he wants to keep the music going a little bit longer. Mr. Biden says that he wants to honor his commitment to give 60 days' notice before ending it because he issued this statement of administrative policy. He only issued this when this bill came to the floor; but he is going to honor his commitment to 60 days' notice. Why is he taking 100 days? If anybody over there can do the math for me. May 11--is that 60 days from now? No, it is more like 100 days from now, roughly. The notion that this was rushed to the floor is ridiculous. Biden wants to keep it going. He wants to spend money under his emergency authorities, which he shouldn't have right now. It is very irresponsible with the debt limit looming and with us in extraordinary measures. The reality is he wants 100 more days to shove money out the door and to waste money that hasn't been guarded very well or audited. It has been 1,000 into 15 days to slow the spread. It is time to end this emergency now. Mr. Speaker, I support Mr. Gosar's bill.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for organizing this time on the floor. I think it is so important. We are talking about the brace ruling from the ATF. A brace is a firearm accessory for disabled individuals. But I am sure Biden went to his Attorney General and to the ATF and said, you know what, I hate guns. How can I take millions of them off the street, without regard for if they are legally owned? And how can I do it without going to Congress because I really don't be want to do that. Now, keep in mind, this is administrative law. Our Founders were against this type of thing because they knew that the laws shouldn't change with each administration. When Democrats controlled both Chambers of Congress and the White House, they didn't pass this legislation. This ATF rule says that gun owners have 120 days of amnesty to register or destroy their firearm if it has this firearm accessory. If you don't obey, you become a felon. What this administrative rule does not do is it does not make people safer. This ruling turns millions of law-abiding gun owners into criminals. Tens of millions of pistol braces have been sold in the United States, with the permission of the ATF, the written permission of the ATF. They are telling you to take this off, or transfer it, or register it like a machine gun, basically, the same paperwork. If you want to turn it into a short-barreled rifle, guess what? Twenty-six percent of Americans live in a State where the ATF has left them with no option. They will create an illegal gun in their State if they comply with the ATF ruling in order to keep their gun. How much compliance do we think there is going to be? Well, there was a bump stock rule similar to this. There are about half a million bump stocks estimated in circulation; 526 have been returned to the government. So they have made half a million felons is what they have done. Now, Mr. Clyde has several bills to fix this. I can anticipate--or I believe Justice Scalia, if he were alive, I can tell you, I believe, based on a meeting that I had with him, which one he would prefer. Several of us had breakfast with Scalia, and we said, oh, Obama is so bad, and we don't have the constitutional balance of government. Fix this for us, Supreme Court. Scalia said, this is not my job to referee fights between you and the executive branch. By the way, you are the most powerful, powerful branch. You are Article I, and you can't--you have all the tools you need to stop what he is doing. One of my colleagues said, well, impeachment is so hard. Scalia said, I am not talking about impeachment. You are funding everything you complain about. So I believe that his favorite method here, and it is certainly my favorite method, would have been to defund this activity. The ruling is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. I urge all Americans to call their Representatives and support Andrew Clyde's bill.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution because it would facilitate the passage of H.R. 497, the Freedom for Health Care Workers Act. What does that bill do? It ends the unscientific, illogical, immoral, unconstitutional, unethical, vaccine mandate on healthcare workers that is predicated on lies. What are some of those lies? Let's start with the first one. The first lie: The vaccine prevents spread. Who says that it doesn't prevent spread? Is this an internet conspiracy? Well, it is on the internet, but it is the CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, who said 1 year ago, ``What the vaccines can't do anymore is prevent transmission.'' Pfizer admitted they were not asked by regulators to assess whether their shots reduced transmission, nor did their trials measure whether the shots reduced transmission. What is the second lie that this mandate is predicated on? The vaccines don't cause any harm, can't cause any harm. They are safe. They are completely safe. You have nothing to worry about. No side effects. No adverse reactions. Who disputes that? Is it an internet conspiracy? It is the CDC website. Yes, it is on the internet. The CDC website acknowledges that the vaccines can cause myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots, and even death. CDC and FDA recently announced they had identified a preliminary vaccine safety signal for persons 65 and older for the bivalent vaccine, that it could increase their chance of stroke in the 21 days following vaccination with Pfizer's new bivalent vaccine. What is the third lie that this is predicated on, this vaccine mandate for healthcare workers? That it is scientific. That it makes sense. How does it make sense? To require somebody to have two shots targeted at a variant of the virus that is no longer circulating; to have two shots that wear off after 8 months, two shots that were taken 2 years ago. The CDC acknowledges that those vaccines that are mandated taken two years ago have worn off by now. Why would you mandate them? What is the fourth lie that this vaccine mandate is predicated on? It ignores natural immunity. When the vaccines first came out, the CDC said that the Pfizer trial showed that the vaccine was 92 percent efficacious for those who had already had COVID. Guess what? It showed no such thing. I called the CDC. They admitted to me it was wrong. They said they would fix the website. Here we are over 2 years later, they haven't fixed that lie on their website. They know it is a lie. I have them on a recording if anybody over there wants to hear it. Finally, who is liable for the damage that this could cause? Nobody is liable. We are living under medical malpractice martial law right now under the PREP Act in the EUAs. Madam Speaker, let me close with this: This vaccine mandate affects nurses; 85 percent of nurses are female. Joe Biden's COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers have forced many from the workplace. Many of them quit nursing as a career, retired early, or didn't pursue it as a degree. This is the epitome of hypocrisy. Nobody in this room was mandated to take a vaccine, and we are voting on whether we are going to force people who want to take care of people, whether they have to take the vaccine. End the hypocrisy. None of us were mandated. None of the staff in this room were mandated to take this vaccine. End it now. Support this rule.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the very words expressed by those opposed to this committee demonstrate the dire need for this committee. We have gone 4 years without oversight, and to quote Shakespeare, ``The lady doth protest too much, methinks.'' Those who argue against transparency may have something to hide. So I listened very closely when I heard the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee give the reason that maybe we shouldn't ask for this information from the intelligence community. He said that the intelligence community after this committee may be reluctant to share information with Congress and that Congress needs to craft legislation. I would suggest if they are reluctant, then they are disqualified from holding these positions. If they have grown so big that they are no longer accountable to the branch of government that created them, that funds them, and that is responsible for their oversight, then they need to be hemmed in. I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to populate this committee with serious Democrats. I know there are some over there. I have worked with them. We have cosponsored amendments on privacy over the past decade. Some of them have passed. Please populate it with serious Members. Please, to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, give us the resources we need to do this job. If I may rebut one thing that man said on the other side of the aisle about ongoing criminal investigations, he said that it is unprecedented that Congress would engage in an investigation that involves an ongoing criminal investigation. What was the January 6 Committee? This is not unprecedented. It is what you wasted millions of dollars on over the past 2 years. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule and support for the committee that it will create.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, last month we ended the vaccine mandate for the military, but there are still many unscientific, illogical, and unconstitutional mandates for vaccines in this country. If you watched C-SPAN last week, you saw 434 of us in here screaming, yelling, cheering, speaking--many of us unvaccinated. Most of us probably not boosted. Why do we have a double standard? Why do we make visitors of this country get vaccinated just to visit their friends and family? Why are we separating families over this? We need to end that mandate. We need to end the healthcare mandate. We need to end all of the mandates, and we need to do this now.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, thousands of members of the military have terminated their service for our country because of the COVID military vaccine mandate. Thousands more have chosen early retirement, and thousands have not enlisted. Recruitment is down. Our national security is suffering because of this. It is time to treat the men and women of our military who have signed up and pledged their lives to defend this country with the respect they deserve. It is time to get rid of the COVID vaccine mandate for the military. My bill, H.R. 3860, would do that. I introduced it in June 2021. Since then, we have garnered over 90 cosponsors for that bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, as they consider the language of the National Defense Authorization Act this week, to include the language of H.R. 3860 to protect the brave men and women of our military.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, there is not a more fierce fighter than Louie Gohmert in this House, and if you are serving in this House and have a bigger heart than Louie Gohmert, I haven't met you yet. I am sorry. I need to find you. I haven't found anybody with a heart the size of Louie Gohmert's. One of the measures, I think, of a Member here is how they treat their staff and how their staff responds to them. Louie Gohmert attracts the best talent of anybody in this Chamber, and they love him. We love Louie Gohmert. I remember my first week in Congress. I was in conference. We were going to elect a Speaker, and nobody was challenging Speaker Boehner. Louie Gohmert got up to nominate somebody else. He reminded us all that you didn't have to be a Member of the House to be nominated for Speaker. I was just praying that he didn't nominate Ron Paul because I knew I would have to second that nomination. I leaned to the person next to me, and I said: ``Who is that guy making that nomination?'' He said: ``Oh, that is Louie Gohmert. He is crazy.'' Well, within a week, I realized Louie Gohmert was the only sane man in this Chamber, and for 10 years, he has been guiding me. He has a photographic memory and is sharp as a whip. He is like an encyclopedia of everything that has happened in this Chamber while he was here, before I got here. One day in conference, they were telling us: Look, when the quarterback calls the play and snaps the ball, you don't execute another play. They were imploring us to do something, frankly, that wasn't in the best interests of the people from Tyler, Texas, nor in the interests of the people from Kentucky. I asked Louie: Louie, what are you going to do when the quarterback snaps the ball? He said: When the quarterback snaps the ball and runs for the wrong end zone, I am not obligated to block for him. In fact, I might have to tackle him. Louie Gohmert has never been afraid to go against the grain when it means supporting the people from Texas' First District, and that is the people I thank for loaning us Louie Gohmert, for having the good discernment to send him to Congress in the first place and then to send him back. America has benefited from the good judgment of the people in Texas' First District. We are going to miss you very much, sorely, Louie.

Mr. MASSIE. Yes.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I want to be the first to admit, this is a difficult bill to debate. It sounds good. I believe the intentions of the other side of the aisle are good as well. Nobody should be subjected to sexual harassment. But there is a problem. We are legislating outside of our domain. We are violating States' rights in doing this. The law that is being proposed to pass today here has already in some form or another been implemented in 15 different States. But guess what, those 15 different States don't all have the same solution. It is sort of arrogant for us to sit here and say that we are going to come up with a one-size-fits- all that is going to be better than anything those 15 States have done. I say to my constituents at home, that there are three tests that I apply to any bill before voting for it. The first test is, is it constitutional. This bill is questionable whether it is constitutional because it would regulate intrastate contracts, not just interstate contracts. We all know we have no business inside of the States. The other test that I apply is, can we afford it. Well, ostensibly, this bill doesn't cost that much to impose a new thing on employers or on contracts. But the third test that I always apply is, is this something we should solve at the Federal level or can States do it better? That is where this bill fails. The States can legislate on this. The States have legislated on this; 15 different States since 2018 have legislated on this. In fact, as I read this bill and as we debated it, I wondered what is the definition of sexual harassment. Well, the bill itself refers to the State definitions of sexual harassment. It is tacitly acknowledging that contract law is the domain of the States. There was a concern expressed during the debate in committee on this that is this the camel putting its nose in the tent when we let Federal laws intervene in or override State laws, and that was a concern that was expressed. But it wasn't a conspiracy theory that there would be more legislation after that. In fact, the ink is not even dry on this; the vote hasn't happened today. But 2 days ago, just recently, the Executive Office of the President, OMB, issued a Statement of Administration Policy about this bill. They are giddy at overriding State laws and breaking State contracts. In fact, their statement says: ``The administration looks forward to continuing to work with the Congress to advance broader legislation that addresses the range of issues implicated in NDAs and nondisparagement clauses.'' They can't wait to do more of this. They can't wait to take over the State legislatures' roles in legislating these issues. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this. I know it is a tough vote. I know the other side has good intentions, but this is the wrong bill.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, if facts are the ammunition of debate, I point out that the other side of the aisle entered this room unarmed. There are so many mischaracterizations or misfires, if you will, about this bill and what this bill does that I don't know where to start. But let me start here with the words of the author of this bill. He says it will ban weapons of war only suitable for soldiers in combat. Is that what it does? Does it ban an M16? It doesn't ban an M16 or an M4. It bans the most commonly sold rifle in the United States today and for the last several years. It doesn't ban weapons of war. It explicitly exempts the M1 Garand. General Patton said the M1 Garand is the finest implement of battle ever devised. Why is it exempted? It is a weapon of war. It exempts the M1 Carbine. Look at the picture of the soldiers, the marines at Iwo Jima. What were they carrying? The M1 Carbine. It exempts the quintessential Cold War weapon, the pride of the Chinese and the Communists, the SKS. It is exempted in this bill. These are literal weapons of war that are not in this bill. Now, they will come back and ban those, but they don't want to ban them right now because they don't look scary enough. They have a wooden forestock and a wooden butt. They not made of plastic. They don't look like the scary stuff on the news, so they have no interest in banning that. Literal, actual weapons of war are not banned, but the most common firearm sold today is banned. But let's take them at their word. Weapons of war. These are weapons of war. We have got to ban weapons of war. Well, they exempt 80-some Federal agencies from the ban. Literally, every bureaucratic agency in the government can have a weapon of war under this bill; weapons of war as they call them. So we offered an amendment in the committee. We couldn't conceive of why the Department of Education would need a weapon of war to complete their mission of educating our children; coming up with the curriculum. We couldn't conceive of why the USDA would need weapons of war, so we offered an amendment to exempt the USDA and the Department of Education from being able to have these weapons of war; so-called weapons of war. Every Democrat, even though they couldn't give us a good reason of why these agencies would need weapons of war, or with whom they planned to go to war--are they bringing them to the school board? Where are they going to bring these things? Now, they couldn't give a good reason why these agencies would need weapons of war. But they all voted to allow these agencies to have weapons of war. Now, the reason they did, we came to that conclusion is, they aren't weapons of war. It is the most common firearm sold in the United States today. These are not weapons of war. There was one Democrat who did articulate a reason. He said, well, they are actually good for defense. You have might need them to defend the Department of Education. Well, that is what the Second Amendment is about. It is not about making sure that the Department of Education--which, by the way, is unconstitutional--but it is not making sure that the Department of Education could have proper defense; it is for the people to have proper defense. So that is the first falsehood. Now, here is another reason that gun owners should be concerned about this bill. Maybe you don't own one of these firearms, but if you own guns, you know about terminal ballistics. You know what are suitable calibers for hunting deer, for hunting coyotes. We have heard it said here today, and in the committee, and they showed us a video, oh, the terminal ballistics of a .223 round are so dangerous that we need to ban these AR-15s because they shoot .223 rounds. What they didn't show you was a video of a deer cartridge, like a .30-06, or a 7-millimeter, or a .308. If you are banning--if the purpose of this legislation is to ban these firearms because they shoot a cartridge with those terminal ballistics of a .223, then you plan, you absolutely plan to come after deer rifles because they have two and three times as much power; two and three times as much destructive and killing power as the firearm--as the cartridge used in the firearm that you seek to ban here today. Another falsehood. This bill will save lives. Let me get to this. We heard it here today. I was waiting for it. It was mentioned a couple of times. Even the Speaker of the House mentioned it. They have said that the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban--so-called assault weapons--reduced crime; that crime went down. Well, guess what? From 1995-2004, there were 2 million of these firearms imported or manufactured and sold.

Mr. MASSIE. The number of these rifles doubled in the United States during your last assault weapons ban. If you think crime went down because of the last assault weapons ban, then you have got some explaining to do because the number of those rifles increased. Maybe, just maybe people became safer. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. They are going to tell you that you are on your own. But can you turn this thing off in Chicago? How will you get any sleep because you have a shooting literally every night in Chicago? If they were serious about stopping crime or helping individuals, this would have been called the active violence alert act.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, before I talk about the substance of this bill, or the lack thereof, I would like to put it in the context of the other dozen or so unserious, unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unsafe responses to gun shootings in this country that the Democrats have offered and passed in this Chamber. What have they done? Well, they passed a law to ban magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds. The chairman of the Rules Committee claimed that this would stop shootings like the one at Virginia Tech. What he failed to mention is the shooter at Virginia Tech never used a magazine that had more than 15 rounds. That is an example of an unserious solution that has come from this body. What else have they done? They have changed the definition of a gun dealer so that any law-abiding individual who sells a firearm to anybody and makes a profit off it now might be a gun dealer and, therefore, prosecutable in a Federal crime. What else have they done that is unserious or unconstitutional? Well, they have passed a law to ban gun trafficking. The problem is that is already illegal. Who did they sweep up in this dragnet in this new law? Well, they swept up domestic violence victims who might ask a neighbor for a firearm. Now, they can be prosecuted. Not the neighbor, not just the Good Samaritan, but also the domestic violence victim can be prosecuted as a gun trafficker under a bill that they passed here. Recognizing this flaw, I offered an amendment to fix it in the Judiciary Committee. Every Democrat but one--one of them had a little bit of common sense--voted against that amendment to fix their own bill. What else have they done? Well, they passed a bill that I am going to call unconstitutional on arrival. It has already been ruled unconstitutional if you read the D.C. v. Heller decision. The Supreme Court Justices said that you can't force Mr. Dick Heller to keep his gun unloaded and disassembled in his house because that violates the Second Amendment. But that is exactly what one of their laws that came through this Chamber in just the past couple of months does. It is called the so-called safe storage act. It is already unconstitutional. Who likes this bill more than anybody? Home invaders. Oh, my gosh, wouldn't it be great to know that, by Federal law, everybody who has a firearm now has to have it locked up and unattainable, inaccessible in the amount of time that it would take to respond to a home invader? What else have they done? A red flag bill that deprives citizens of their due process and endangers police officers, who are going to be required to respond in predawn raids of people who haven't had due process, have never had their day in court, haven't even reached a level of evidence that is sufficient. The red flag bill is bad. What else have they done? They passed a bill to deprive 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds of purchasing semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic shotguns. They are already deprived of their constitutional right to buy a handgun, but now we are just going to sweep in all of these things. Are they going to then raise the draft age to 21 now that we are saying Uncle Sam will give you a gun? Uncle Sam can conscript you to the military, send you overseas to fight for a Constitution that doesn't even protect you or your wife, who is at home taking care of the kids, if you are 18-, 19-, or 20-year-olds. They don't care. This one is also unconstitutional on arrival. The Ninth Circuit, one of the most liberal circuits in the country, has already ruled that. Why is this so disturbing? We heard earlier today from one of my colleagues in this debate that she wants to ban assault weapons. Well, the House Democrat Twitter account tweeted that all semiautomatic rifles are weapons of war. Really? There are a lot of people in Kentucky who own Remington 750 deer rifles who are going to be shocked to find out that they purchased a weapon of war. If you saw one of these, I think you would all agree this is not a weapon of war. It is an alarm to every American who is out there watching this debate that they are coming after your guns. Now, let's get to the substance of this bill, or the lack thereof. Why are we here debating this bill? This is the second time we have voted on it, the second time we debated it. Why are we here again? Because they tried to suspend the rules of this body and get it through without following the rules of this House, and they failed. That is why we are here again, to give it the debate it deserves. The bill is called the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022. In the Democrat cities where they defunded the police, I think you should call it the you are on your own act of 2022. Yes, that is right.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, what about violence committed with a car, violence committed with a knife? No concern for that because the true purpose of this bill passing here today is to scare people. It is to scare people on their phones. They can't get away from their phones. It is going to be popping up saying, be afraid, somebody's got a gun, and they are going to try and condition the American public to ask to repeal the Second Amendment, either explicitly or implicitly, here in this Chamber. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding time. The Democrats today describe this Senate bill as a step forward. If you are saving lives, it is a step backward, folks. If you are banning guns, it is a small step forward. Yes, in fact, it is. Almost everybody on the other side of the aisle today said, it doesn't go far enough. What do they mean? Well, it is a red flag law bill, and they want to take all of the guns from some of the people. It doesn't go far enough for them because it doesn't yet take all of the guns from all of the people. That is their goal. Who has taken a step forward, which institution, which branch of government? Well, actually, if you are counting how many lives are going to be saved, you have to consider that the Supreme Court is the institution, the branch of government, that has taken two steps forward in the last 48 hours to save lives. One of those steps was to reaffirm the Heller decision that men and women in this country have the right to defend their own lives. The second step taken today was to affirm that the State legislatures have the right to defend the lives of the unborn. This bill is ineffective, unconstitutional, and ill-conceived without consideration for the dangerous unintended consequences. Did the drafters consider that changing the definition of ``gun dealer'' to be more ambiguous is going to make every American a gun dealer when they transfer a gun to a friend or a family member? Did the Senators consider in their sleep deprivation when they drafted this bill hurriedly, late at night, that using childhood mental health records as a basis for denying adults their basic rights to self-defense is going to discourage many parents from seeking mental health care for their children? If children who need it go without mental health care and early intervention, their conditions will grow worse. We will see more suicides, and we will see more mass shootings. Unfortunately and inevitably, this bill will cost more lives than it will save. Red flag laws are going to have the same effect that considering mental health care for children will have. People will not seek mental health care, and we will see more damage to the American public. If politicians here were serious--and they are not serious. They are going to come back. They will be back. You will be back here in 6 months, a year. You will want another bite at the apple to ban guns because this bill won't do it. This bill won't do what you say. If you were serious, you would acknowledge that 96 percent of mass public shootings happen in an area where guns are banned, and they would repeal the prohibitions that keep law-abiding citizens from exercising their God-given rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Jim Jordan for yielding the time. You know, I find it interesting that all across the country, Democrats are moving to defund the police. Here, today in Congress, we have a bill called the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022. Well, if they defund the police, a more appropriate title for this bill would be the you are on your own act of 2022. Yes, that is right. We think you are in danger, but nobody is coming to help you because we have defunded the police. But what does this bill really do? You know, if it were anything other than an attempt to demonize guns, to panic people, it would cover things like stabbing, car violence. How come we never hear about car violence? It would cover all violence, but they have chosen to single out the Second Amendment and firearms. The technology already exists to do this, and the States that want to do it have already done it, and the campuses across the country that want to do it have implemented this a decade ago. So, why are we doing this at the Federal level? What is the purpose to take what would have been good ideas at the State level, bring them up here, launder them, and then go tell the States how they have to do it, even though they are already doing it in many cases? What good does a one-size-fits-all bill do when you dictate from D.C.? You know, rural Kentucky is not like urban Chicago. If you hear a gun go off in rural Kentucky, your first instinct is not to panic. Now, if your phone comes on and tells you that you need to panic, you might be inclined to do that. But when you hear a gun go off in Kentucky, you assume somebody is hunting. You assume they are target practicing. They are doing something that is lawful. In maybe 1 out of 10,000 cases that it is not, it is just somebody poaching a deer, probably, but it ain't nothing to panic about. That is what they want you to do. You know, it is different when you hear a gun in Kentucky than when you hear one in downtown Chicago, which gets me to the point: Can you turn this system off in Chicago? Is anybody going to be able to sleep in a Democrat-controlled city where crime is rampant, where they are moving to defund the police? How will you get to bed? Every few hours, there is violence in Chicago, or pick your favorite big city run by a big, liberal Democrat where they have the strongest gun bans in the country. They have more violence than anywhere else. So can you turn it off? That would be my first question for those poor folks in Chicago that have to deal with the sort of public policy that Democrats have advanced. Now, one of the questions that came up in our committee that was never answered: Is this going to tell you after the fact, after the shooting has happened, or will it alert you to one that they think is about to happen? We asked, and I asked the bill's sponsor multiple times: Does it do that, or does it just tell you after something has already happened? He didn't know. He wouldn't answer. I doubt he will give us a straight answer here today, if he chooses to answer. So what good is it if it is going to tell you after it has already happened? So, you know, here is what you have to wonder. Every time there is a bill in Congress, it has a great name. At first, it sounds like a great idea. Then when you dig into it, well, somebody has already done it, and it probably is already done at the State level. So, for instance, there are a couple other bills that they passed a couple weeks ago that are already being done. They passed a bill that would ban gun trafficking. Well, the problem is, that is already banned. So what you have to do is dig down and say: Why are they passing another bill? What does this bill do that the one that exists doesn't already do? Well, we found out it would prosecute domestic violence victims if they acquire a firearm for their protection from a neighbor. Well, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me, but the name of the bill sounded pretty good until you dug down into it. The same thing for red flag laws. There is a version of involuntary commitment in all 50 States that already exists, but the difference is there is due process. So why are they doing a shooter alert bill here, an active shooter alert bill?

Mr. MASSIE. So why are they passing a law to do something that is already being done? Well, they want to take Federal control, and then what are they going to do with that Federal control? They want to panic and scare the general public with their phones. Everybody has got one today. You won't be able to turn it off. Oh, no. Be afraid of a gun. Be afraid of a gun. Here is another alert. Be afraid of a gun. That is so they can advance their other agenda, their real agenda, which is to ban all guns and to effectively repeal the Second Amendment.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Everyone wants to stop mass public shooters, but we haven't previously punished people merely on the basis of a hunch, and we shouldn't start now. Stopping future crimes doesn't work in the movies, and it doesn't work in real life. What can work is providing mental healthcare and counseling to those who need it. If people truly pose a clear danger to themselves or others, they should be confined to a mental health facility. Simply denying them the legal right to buy a gun isn't a serious remedy. Actually, it is already possible to take a dangerous person's guns away, but Democrats are completely ignoring involuntary commitment laws that are on the books in all 50 States, presently known as the Baker Act in Florida or the 5150 code in California. These laws are different than the ones that are proposed today in one very important aspect: They involve due process. What is the difference? In the existing involuntary commitment laws, known as the Baker Act, there is a mental healthcare expert involved; there is no such thing in the red flag laws. There is the ability to challenge your accuser to have a day in court before your rights are deprived; there is no such opportunity in the red flag laws. You get an attorney appointed to you if you can't afford it; no such thing in the red flag laws in many of the States. There are predawn raids that endanger the lives, not just of the person we are worried about but of the officers who are tasked with carrying out the raid. Red flag laws could actually increase the rate of homicide and suicide. Simply talking to other people about your healthcare issues and your mental health could help you overcome it, but people will be reluctant to do that if red flag laws are in place. Red flag laws have already created thousands of second-class citizens who no longer have the ability to purchase a firearm for defense in the States that have red flag laws. If this passes today, there will be millions of second-class citizens created in this country who have been deprived of due process and the Second Amendment.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, today we are debating six gun control provisions in one. Why are there six bills in here? Because none of them work. But you can't take six bills that don't work and put them together and make one that does. It doesn't work that way. These are unserious, unconstitutional and, most troubling, dangerous provisions; six titles in this bill, and they all suffer the same inherent problem that gun control suffers when we pass it here in these legislatures, and that problem is, criminals do not obey the law. They are going to love some of these laws, though. Let's take, for instance, the so-called safe storage provisions in here. Home invaders are going to love the fact that Congress has now told you you need to lock up your gun in your house. How are you going to defend yourself when your guns are locked up? This is dangerous. It is also unconstitutional. The Supreme Court already ruled in Heller that it is unconstitutional to require Dick Heller to keep his gun disassembled and unloaded in his house. That violates the Second Amendment. Think about the provision to raise the age to 21 to buy a long gun. That includes rifles and shotguns, not just a handgun, which is already impermissible. This is unconstitutional, and it is immoral. Why is it immoral? Because we are telling 18-, 19-, and 20-year olds to register for the draft. You can go die for your country. We expect you to defend us, but we are not going to give you the tools to defend yourself and your family. I offered an amendment in committee that would let the spouse of somebody in the armed services serving overseas acquire the means of self-defense while her husband is serving overseas; let her defend her and her children. Just because she is 18, 19, or 20, and her husband is serving, she shouldn't be defenseless. The Democrats voted it down in committee. I offered an amendment to say that we won't treat domestic violence victims as gun traffickers if they happen to get a gun from a neighbor instead of getting it from the gun store. Every Democrat but one voted against protecting domestic violence victims. Let me give you one that is not a hypothetical. My dear friend Nikki Goeser, who worked in my congressional office, watched her husband murdered in front of her in a gun-free zone because she followed the law. She had a licensed registered firearm and, in a moment she regrets to this day, she left it in her car because she knew the law said not to bring it in there; but her stalker knew she wasn't going to have a gun. Her stalker murdered her husband in front of her. Criminals don't follow the law. So let's do the one serious thing we could do. Why must children keep dying? Let's quit advertising our schools as soft targets. Let's quit saying that these are gun-free zones, and that these kids are sitting ducks. In 1990, Congress did another knee-jerk reaction that has cost more lives than it saved. It is called the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act. Fortunately, some States and school districts have had the wisdom to override this provision. And guess what? We don't have to guess. Does hardening our schools work? Does letting trained teachers and professional staff carry, does it protect children? We know it does. Because in every single school district, every school that has allowed them to carry, there hasn't just been no mass shootings, there hasn't been a single shooting. Why? Because these insane individuals, they seek one thing. They seek some twisted version of glory, which involves a body count. And they know they will not achieve that if they walk into that school and the first thing they see when they whip out their gun is a staff member who is armed and trained, and they die unceremoniously. That is what they deserve. Put three of those on the news, and you could stop this. So we should quit advertising our schools. Quit making that the Federal default that they are sitting ducks.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. The Democrats today say they don't want to take your guns away. Well, then why does the legislation do just that? What they should say today is: We don't want to take all of the guns away from all of the people just yet because we know we can't get away with that. The reality is the anti-Second Amendment lobby has vastly outspent all of the pro-Second Amendment groups put together in the last several elections. Who is in the pocket of whom? So the red flag laws take all of the guns from some of the people, and the bill that will pass tonight, if the Democrats are fortunate enough to do so, will take some of the guns from all of the people. Now, why are the gun owners who don't own so-called high-capacity magazines, for instance, concerned? Why are the gun owners who don't own, for instance, AR-15-style weapons concerned about this legislation? Because they know the legislation won't work, and the response to this unserious and unconstitutional legislation that will allow the school shootings to continue will be more gun control from the Democrats. Let me give you an example, Madam Speaker. They have a high-capacity magazine ban in here that bans any magazine that can accept over 15 rounds. Well, guess what? At Virginia Tech, the shooter carried 17 magazines none of which held more than 15 rounds and most of which held 10 rounds. The shooter at Columbine carried 13 magazines, each of which held 10 rounds. This legislation would have done absolutely nothing. It is not about how many rounds a magazine holds. It is about the evil intent of the shooter and is there somebody there with the capacity to stop that shooter before they can get going. Why is this legislation dead on arrival in the Senate? Why is it dead on arrival in the Supreme Court? One of my colleagues has already acknowledged they know this is unconstitutional, and they will pack the Court if they have to. They said it in the Judiciary Committee, to keep this legislation alive after it should long since die. But why is it dead? Because Americans don't support it. You have quoted statistics. Those statistics are fake. If they were true, this would breeze through the Senate. But they are not. And so I urge my colleagues to respect the Constitution; respect the will of the American people; to respect the safety of American citizens and, most of all, the safety of children. Let's do something to protect them instead of these fake virtue signals that will do nothing but to curtail the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I appreciate his unwavering support for the Second Amendment. Madam Speaker, I rise today because, just last week, our President of this country spoke about using the nuclear option. He wasn't talking about getting rid of the 60-vote rule in the Senate. He was actually contemplating a nuclear conflagration with the citizens of this country, with the patriots of this country. He said they should get F- 15s and nuclear weapons if they wanted to keep this government in check. Those aren't the words of George Washington. Those would be the words of King George. Imagine if a dictator--just imagine the dictator of North Korea or the despot who runs Iran had muttered or stuttered or uttered these words like our President would and did. There would be an international outcry today to have that dictator removed. We need to hold our chief executive accountable for these words. And our chief executive of this country would do well to understand what the Second Amendment is really about. It is about keeping an overzealous executive in check. It is about securing all of the other liberties in this constitution. It is about the patriots who are willing to tell the government: We are in charge.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to end the war in Iraq. That is right, it is still going on. The 2002 AUMF that authorized military force in the Iraq war is still active, but today we will be voting on it, and it is long past due for us to vote on it. The original text of the 2002 AUMF was disturbingly broad and authorizes the United States military to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions. We have wasted $750 million on the world's largest embassy in Iraq. When we get out of Iraq, it is time to put a for sale sign on that embassy. We may get only pennies on the dollar for that embassy, but that is better than sacrificing lives. We don't want another Libya; we don't want another Benghazi to happen in Iraq. It is time to scale down the embassy, put what is there for sale, and bring our troops and our diplomats home. Saddam Hussein's regime was defeated in 2003. That is 18 years ago. Obama declared the Iraq war ended in 2011. But the AUMF was never repealed, and it gives a blank check to any current or subsequent administration to keep American soldiers in Iraq indefinitely and puts us at risk of getting into another war if things escalate. By 2013, a majority of Americans believed that the Iraq war was a mistake. Approximately 4,586 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq, lost their lives since the beginning of the war, and 32,000 have been seriously wounded or injured in Iraq since the start of the war. Although it is hard to know the estimated number of civilian casualties during this period of time in Iraq, it is somewhere between 800,000 and 1.3 million civilians. Think about that. A million civilians have died in this conflict. It is time for us to leave. We owe it to our soldiers. They signed up to protect our country. They didn't sign up to be the world's policemen. I urge my colleagues to vote for this repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF today.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I fully support creating a day to celebrate the abolition of slavery, a dark portion of our Nation's history. However, naming this day National Independence Day will create confusion and push Americans to pick one of those 2 days as their Independence Day based on their racial identity. Why can't we name this Emancipation Day and come together as Americans and celebrate that day together as Americans? Black and White--all colors, all races, and all ethnicities--can then come together on Independence Day, which celebrates the creation of our country, throwing off an oppressive government, and come together as Black, White, and all races to celebrate that day, too? Why ask Americans to pick one of the two Independence Days to celebrate? I think it is wrong to do that. I think this day is misnamed. I do support creating a holiday and recognizing that wonderful day and that wonderful time when we got rid of slavery in this country. But let's celebrate both of those days: Independence Day and the day that we celebrate emancipation and ridding our country of slavery. Let's celebrate those 2 days together as one Nation under God indivisible.