Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. MASSIE. When a quorum is not present, under the rule, the yeas and nays are automatic. Will there be a vote of the yeas and nays?

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, when a quorum is not present and that is noted by a Member, under the rules, the yeas and nays are automatic. Is that correct?

Mr. MASSIE. All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee came out with a procedural resolution for the farm bill that violates both the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. Just when you thought Congress couldn't get any swampier, we continue to exceed even the lowest expectations. Section 2 of House Resolution 1176, the rule for the farm bill, says that the provisions of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution shall not apply during the remainder of the 115th Congress to any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. What this means is that our leadership has decided that the House just doesn't need to vote on whether U.S. soldiers, personnel, weapons, and taxpayer dollars should go toward assisting Saudi Arabia with its brutal war on civilians in Yemen, a war that has caused the world's worst famine in over 100 years. This isn't the first time that our leadership, using the Rules Committee, has swept under the rug the War Powers Act. They did it last month. What they did is they hid the vote inside of another resolution, a procedural resolution for a bill called Manage our Wolves Act. So, many Members of Congress swept under the rug the War Powers Act without even knowing it, because it was in a procedural resolution. But think about what they are doing this time. Instead of specifying a certain resolution that they are going to suspend the War Powers Act for, they are saying any resolution for all of Congress. In my opinion, this violates both the U.S. Constitution and statutory law. But, apparently, this doesn't matter to our leadership and the majority of the Rules Committee. Just as a remainder, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says that Congress and Congress alone, not the executive branch, possesses the power to declare war. Although the Constitution's language unequivocally gives this power solely to Congress, Presidents, nevertheless, continued to launch military action abroad prior to receiving Congressional approval. This is why Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973. Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act requires the President to remove United States forces at any time, if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution, and Section 7 establishes priority procedures for consideration of such a removal resolution. It requires the Committee on Foreign Affairs to report out that resolution within 15 days. You can't let this thing die in committee. It has to come back to the floor within 15 days, according to the law since 1973. Then it directs that the House must vote on the resolution within 3 calendar days. It can't die on the floor. There has to be a vote within 3 days. But, instead of following the law, instead of following the Constitution, the Rules Committee last night snuck language into the rule for the farm bill, and this should upset farmers who are depending on the farm bill. They snuck into the rule for the farm bill a resolution that deprives the entire House of Representatives of its constitutional right to decide when and where our soldiers should be sent into harm's way. So let me sum this up. Even if you think we should be involved in Yemen, even if you think soldiers should go there, even if you think we should give the bombs to Saudi Arabia to drop on civilians, you shouldn't want to sneak that into an unrelated bill. You shouldn't want to hide that in a farm bill. What good could you be up to by hiding that in another bill? But let's say you are okay with hiding it in another bill because you don't want your constituents to find out where you stand on this issue: I had to vote for the farm bill. Sorry. Well, even if you are okay with hiding it in another bill, this is the wrong way to do it. Last time, when they snuck it--when they swept it under the rug last month, they specified that the resolution wouldn't have the powers of the War Powers Act, wouldn't have the privileges of the War Powers Act. This time, not only are they sweeping it under the rug, they are preemptively sweeping all of the power of Congress under the War Powers Act under the rug for the entire remainder of this congressional session. It sets a horrible precedent. It is a dangerous precedent. The Speaker is grabbing more powers using the Speaker's committee, the Rules Committee. He is doing so and jeopardizing the power of the House of Representatives, because for him to grab more power requires us to give more power to the executive branch, to abdicate our constitutional responsibility to decide when and where our military should go. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this illegal and unconstitutional action today by voting ``no'' on the rule for the farm bill. That is House Resolution 1176

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for mentioning Louis Pasteur and the pasteurization process, because what we have today is pasteurization without representation here in this country. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my friend.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I want you to imagine this scenario: a heavily armed Federal SWAT team dressed in black from head to toe with body armor on, guns blazing, military-style assault weapons, extra magazines loaded, come in intent on crushing all opposition. Now, what crime could they possibly be going after? Is it a human trafficking ring? Is it a drug bust? No. They are after an Amish farmer for selling milk straight from the cow. I would like to tell you this is an imaginary scenario, but it has happened and it keeps happening. Unfortunately, this isn't a joke. So what is interesting about this is that Congress has never passed a ban on raw milk, yet the FDA has imposed a ban on raw milk. So what I seek to do today, and my colleagues, with this amendment is to allow States which have legalized raw milk, to allow the interstate transport of that raw milk between two States that have made it legal to sell unpasteurized milk. It is a very commonsense amendment. There are millions of people who drink raw milk in this country. They drink it safely. They believe it is much healthier for them than pasteurized milk. The Greatest Generation in our country grew up drinking raw milk that was unpasteurized. Twenty-eight States allow the sale of unpasteurized raw milk. So it is ridiculous for us, I believe, the Federal Government, to go in and keep people from buying raw milk or transporting raw milk across State lines so long as it is legal in those two States. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this amendment is a bipartisan amendment. This has been a very partisan debate over a lot of these amendments over the farm bill, and I think it is time that we have something that is supported by both sides of the aisle. This amendment is modeled after a stand-alone bill that has over a dozen cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, and the sponsors of this amendment are Congressman Polis and Congressman Rohrabacher in addition to me. It is very simple. If you understand federalism, you can understand this bill. It says that, if two States have legalized the sale of unpasteurized milk, no Federal department, agency, or court may take any action to prohibit or restrict the interstate traffic of milk or milk products between those two States. There are 28 States that have legalized the sale of raw milk. With a debt of over $21 trillion, the Federal Government doesn't have the time, the money, or the resources to chase down and prosecute peaceful farmers. This is an issue of both personal freedom and smart government. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I know Big Milk opposes raw milk. The milk lobby doesn't like my amendment. In fact, the lactose lobby is very intolerant of freedom. But I am here today to take up for consumers and small farmers and States' rights, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this. Reject pasteurization without representation. Vote to allow the interstate transport of raw milk between two States where it is legal. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I let the statements and the speech of our guest yesterday go unanswered. The President of France was here, right at this microphone, delivering his own brand of socialism. It is new and improved. We have all seen the inefficiencies of socialism play out in Europe over the decades and the horrors of national socialism. But the French President has a new brand of socialism that we are all supposed to be enamored with. I would call it global socialism, maybe even global corporate socialism. I hope none of my colleagues were seduced by his ideas. Ironically, they are motivated by fear, an irrational fear of the carbon dioxide molecule. Carbon dioxide is a necessary ingredient for all life on this planet. For instance, let me give you the equation for photosynthesis. Basically, plants take six CO2 molecules and react them with six water molecules, in the presence of sunlight, to create one sugar molecule and six oxygen molecules. Take CO2 off this planet, and what happens? Nearly everything dies and we die. So I think it is very interesting that this new socialism has a twist to it, this global socialism, and that is, it is motivated by an irrational fear of one of the two chemical compounds that form the basis of our food chain. Very ironic. It is also motivated by something else that the Europeans have had a penchant for for centuries, that has bankrupted nearly every country over there, and that is a penchant for war, for interventionism. Nearly all of them, at one point or time, have sought to build an empire. So the President of France was over here saying that we should also be interventionists; that we need to get involved in the Middle East more; that we need to be involved in all of the countries. I reject this. I would urge my colleagues to stick with the plan we have got. Stick with the policy that we have had since the beginning of this country. Stick with the Constitution. Stick with capitalism. Stick with the idea that if you build something you own it, and reject European socialism.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize outstanding students in my district from Highlands High School in Fort Thomas. These exceptional students competed in the ``We the People'' State- level competition, and they will represent our State at the national competition here in D.C. this weekend. This is their 15th State championship win. The ``We the People'' program is directed by the Center for Civic Education, and its goal is to increase students' knowledge of constitutional history and government--I think some of my colleagues could stand to participate in this program--and to provide a foundation in civics education that will prepare them for future leadership roles. The program sponsors student debates and hearings. This year, some of the national hearing questions for discussion include: What are classical republicanism and natural rights philosophy, and how did they influence the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights? How has the relationship among the three branches of government changed in the course of the history of our country? It has changed quite a bit. I am proud of my constituent students' hard work and dedication. I wish them the very best of luck in this competition this weekend and congratulate them for their outstanding work representing the State of Kentucky. President Macron's Brand of Socialism