Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. MASSIE. I object.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the Senate amendment on the table.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if both managers support the motion.

Mr. MASSIE. I am, yes. I am opposed to the motion.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Congress and, in particular, the House of Representatives has the power of the purse. Our Constitution gives this power to the legislative branch, not the executive branch. This means that the President cannot fund his illegal executive actions on immigration unless we, the House of Representatives, let him. If today we agree to just give the President all the taxpayer funds he wants so that he can implement his illegal actions, why should the American people ever trust us again? They will realize that all our bluster about border security is just that, bluster. They will realize that we don't actually care about the best interests of the American people and that, instead, we just care about going along to get along, even if that means going along with the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the executive branch. Today we heard Mr. Netanyahu say this is the most powerful legislative organization in the world. I would say it is--except for when the Senate decides that it is not. We need to stand up, use the power of the purse, and exercise our constitutional duty to fund only legal and constitutional activities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote today in the best interests of the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson).

Mr. MASSIE. I request a recorded vote--the yeas and nays--on the previous question.

Mr. MASSIE. I withdraw that request.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. MASSIE. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Clerk, I present for election to the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives for the 114th Congress the name of the Honorable Ted Yoho, a great defender of the Constitution and Representative-elect from the great State of Florida.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent, Dr. Michael B. McCall. Dr. McCall is the Founding President and Chief Executive Officer of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS). Since his appointment in 1998, Dr. McCall has honorably served as the head of a system made up of 16 colleges located on more than 70 campuses across the state, serving over 92,000 students. He recently announced his retirement, effective January 2015. KCTCS is the largest provider of workforce training in Kentucky, serving more than 5,300 businesses and training more than 52,000 employees annually. Among his many achievements, Dr. McCall has led the KCTCS Board of Regents' ratification or approval of more than 700 credit program options that resulted in certificates, diplomas or associate degrees. Under Dr. McCall's leadership, KCTCS became the state's largest provider of online learning, offering more than 77 online credentials. Other KCTCS accomplishments spearheaded by Dr. McCall include the creation of the North American Racing Academy (first college-affiliated horseracing academy in the United States), the Kentucky Coal Academy, the Kentucky Fire Commission, and the Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services. Dr. McCall has also personally received numerous awards and honors, including the Phi Theta Kappa's prestigious State Community College Director Award of Distinction and the 2005 National Council for Continuing Education and Training's National Leadership Award. In addition, the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development honored Dr. McCall with its 2005 International Leadership Award. Dr. McCall also received the prestigious honor of selection by the Kentucky Monthly Magazine as the 2004 Kentuckian of the Year, and on June 30, 2006, Dr. McCall completed his tenure as Board Chair of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). This marked the first time ever that a system-level president was elected chair of the AACC board. A recent study by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems highlighted many KCTCS accomplishments achieved under Dr. McCall's leadership. For example, KCTCS ranks 5th among the nation's community and technical college systems in the category of ``improvement over time in its outreach to younger working-aged adults without college degrees.'' In addition, from 2000 to 2012, KCTCS experienced a 63 percent increase in enrollment, while at the same time, the population of KY citizens aged 18 to 34 only increased by 2%. Finally, at least one of KCTCS's colleges has been awarded a ``top- ten'' finish in each of the three rounds of the Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence. I salute Dr. McCall for his exemplary service to KCTCS, the state of Kentucky, and the nation.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, on June 19, 2014, the House of Representatives passed a historic amendment to the fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The amendment was offered by myself and Ms. Lofgren, along with several of our House colleagues. Our amendment blocks government bureaucrats from performing backdoor warrantless searches of the private email content and telephone calls of U.S. citizens. The amendment also prohibits the NSA and CIA from requiring technology companies to place backdoors in their products. Our amendment passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan and veto-proof majority of 293-123. Now, some of those who did not vote for the amendment told me that they thought the proper place for this amendment was in the NDAA, not in an appropriations act, and I tend to agree with them. I would like to see that in the NDAA, but our only opportunity was to put it into the appropriations bill. There has been some discussion, unfortunately, of recent talk, if you will, that this amendment will be stripped from the omnibus. If that is the case, I think it does belong in the NDAA this year because this is the bill that authorizes these programs that we have heard so much about. Americans were horrified to learn that the government was spying on them without even bothering to get a warrant, and the overwhelming number of Members who voted in favor of the Massie-Lofgren amendment did so because they listened to their constituents. I would hope we would listen to our constituents today, include provisions to reform the NSA, particularly the provision to stop the backdoor warrantless spying on Americans in this NDAA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I urge you to include this in the underlying bill.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act. Before I came to Washington, I spent 6 years studying science, math, and engineering at MIT. We were taught there and we learned very well that transparency and reproducibility are the basic tenets of science. In fact, one of my favorite things that I learned--and this comes from engineering, where you apply science--is, without facts, all you have is an opinion. That is what the other side needs to learn today. They are hiding behind this false narrative, unfortunately, that the EPA will be unable to use certain data because they would have to release confidential or private information. This is patently untrue. Look, the FDA, the CFPB, the Census Bureau, which one of those organizations does not collect data that has sensitive and private information in it? Yet they still use the data. They can still disclose the data, and it is transparent, and we can look at it. This is a solvable problem. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences, in 2005, said nothing in the past suggests that increasing access to research data without damage to privacy and confidentiality rights is beyond scientific reach. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I will introduce into the Record a memorandum from the President's own OMB to the executive heads of departments and agencies that encourages more transparency. This is a May 9, 2013, memorandum. Clearly, we have the same goals with the administration, so I don't understand why the other side is against this. In fact, this memorandum from the President's own OMB says, ``Making information resources accessible, discoverable, and usable by the public can help fuel entrepreneurship, innovation, and scientific discovery--all of which improve Americans' lives and contribute significantly to job creation.'' But are they worried? Are they worried that you can't release data, that you will violate somebody's privacy or confidentiality? No, they are not. In fact, the President's own OMB Director references the standards that we have. This is what science is about. It is about standards. It is about units of measure. It is about numbers. And we have standards for this. The NIST has standards for guidelines and definitions for releasing data while maintaining confidentiality, integrity, and availability. So they are clearly hiding behind a false narrative. The EPA Administrator, Ms. McCarthy, said in a March 7, 2014, letter to Congress that the Agency's efforts ultimately resulted in the CDC reaching the conclusion that all of the research data could be provided without the need for de-identification. So there is really a false narrative here. I don't know how the other side, who purports to be for science--and I am for science, with my background. I don't know how the other side can make these arguments with a straight face. I would just say the American people would be better served with access to this data. I support the bill. Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, May 9, 2013.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the amendment to intervene in the civil war in Syria. It is immoral to use the prospect of a government shutdown to pressure Members to vote for involvement in a war, much less a civil war on the other side of the globe. Because the Syrian resolution is contained within the continuing resolution, Representatives and Senators must tacitly approve the President's aggressive intervention in order to vote to fund all government programs. It is disingenuous for the administration to tell the American public that we are arming Syrian rebels to fight ISIS when the administration's stated objective is to topple the secular government of Syria, a government, I might add, that has not committed aggression against the United States. If the goal of arming and training so-called moderate Syrian rebels is to eliminate ISIS, this plan will not work. Military experts know this, as does the President. He acknowledged as much 5 weeks ago when he stated that the idea that arming rebels would have made a difference has ``always been a fantasy.'' What is our endgame? What is our long-term strategy? What will this ultimately cost? What are the unintended consequences that may come about? Will we follow this with boots on the ground? Who has these answers? The American people deserve these answers. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I also urge the same Members to stand strong and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. If this amendment should pass, there is no way to avoid culpability for a military action that is destined to cost innocent lives and will ultimately fail.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you. Congressman Ron Paul's words are even more true today than they were then, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. It is time to force the Federal Reserve to operate by the same standards of transparency and accountability to the taxpayers that we should demand of all government agencies.

Mr. MASSIE. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my friend and colleague Congressman Paul Broun's Federal Reserve Transparency Act, otherwise known as ``Audit the Fed.'' Our mutual friend and predecessor, Congressman Ron Paul, first introduced this bill back in 1983. His often lonely voice and courageous efforts to shed light on the secretive and harmful actions of the Federal Reserve have finally paid off over 30 years later. In July of 2012, Congressman Paul's ``Audit the Fed'' bill passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming vote of 327-98. Sadly, it has yet to receive a vote in the Senate. As Congressman Ron Paul stated here on the House floor in 2011, in words that remain current and relevant today in 2014: Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913, the dollar has lost over 98 percent of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hardworking Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation. Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed's susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being largely insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests. The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has Federal law enforcement powers and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly because the Fed has operated swap lines with foreign central banks and provided hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts to foreign commercial banks, the Fed's negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank for International Settlements, and other foreign institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. Given the currency crisis in Europe and the prospect of the Fed propping up foreign governments or bailing out American banks invested in European debt, this issue is of especially pressing concern.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Day three, Washington under siege--3 days ago, a Federal judge struck down D.C.'s unconstitutional ban on the right to bear arms. D.C. went from having the most restrictive gun laws in the country to having virtually no restrictions on carrying a handgun in public. Did gun-toting tourists commence to shoot-outs? Did residents cower in their homes? Did vigilante posses maraud about the city? Did politicians revert to dueling at 10 paces? No, none of these things are happening. History will show the streets are safer today as more law- abiding residents and visitors are armed. Contrary to apocryphal warnings from D.C. leaders, no one is panicked--except for the city's leaders. Why are the city's leaders apoplectic, and why are they asking for an immediate stay from the judge's ruling? Because the emperor has no clothes and all of the lies about gun control are being exposed right here in the District of Columbia on day three.

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 105. Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution gives the sole power to declare war to Congress, not the President. The situation in Iraq is deteriorating as we speak. ISIS, a group of violent fundamentalist Islamic thugs, is terrorizing the people of Iraq and destroying the ancient culture of Mosul. Some have called for the U.S. to interfere once again, but if we are to do so and to send our brave men and women into harm's way overseas, we must honor the Constitution. Congress must authorize any such military action. It would be illegal for the President to do so alone. Any future military action in Iraq would constitute a new war, with new enemies--ISIS--and would require a new congressional authorization. The President cannot use the 2002 authorization for the use of force in Iraq to justify any new action. It is important for those who are quick to rush into another war to remember that wars often have unintended consequences. Iraq is a prime example. In a recent article in The Telegraph, historian Dr. Tim Stanley pointed out that prior to the 2003 Iraq war, there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq. Today, there are only 400,000. As Dr. Stanley writes, ``The lesson is: `either leave other countries alone or, if you must intervene, do so with consistency and resilience.' The consequences of going in, messing things up, and then quitting with a weary shrug are terrible for those left behind.'' If we are going to go to war, we must follow the Constitution, have Congress declare it, and fight to win. Anything else is illegal, unconstitutional, and likely to lead to unintended, horrific consequences. That is why I support H. Con. Res. 105, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.