Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee and who, in fact, improved this bill before it came to the floor. We marked it up in the Committee on the Judiciary. He had a suggestion. In order not to delay the bill or the passage of it through committee, I assured the gentleman that I would work with him before it came to the floor. A lot of times, that is a euphemism, and it never happens, but we did, in fact, insert the language from Hank Johnson's office directly into this bill. It was not because I wanted to cut a deal but because it actually made the bill better. We will find out not just the demographics of the denials but also the demographics of the people who overturned their denials. This is important, too, for improving the system. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in actual opposition to the motion.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this clean reauthorization of FISA and, in particular, to this short-term authorization of FISA. A short-term infringement of the Constitution is still an infringement of the Constitution. How long has the Senate had to act on this? Is this an emergency? Is this something we haven't known about? No. I appreciate the work of my dear colleague and chairman of our committee, Mr. Jordan, on this issue for so many years of trying to get warrants before Americans are spied upon. In fact, my colleague on the other side of the aisle Zoe Lofgren and I, over a decade ago, were successful in passing an amendment to FISA, during the appropriations process, that would have prohibited funds to be used in the FISA program without a warrant. What happened to that amendment? It died in the Senate. They have had over a decade to work on this. What does FISA stand for? Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This, when it was originated, was never meant to be used to surveil Americans or to search through databases for their information. It was intended for foreign intelligence. But now it is used on Americans without a warrant. FISA databases have been used to query political activists, journalists, Members of Congress and their staff, and random romantic interests of FBI agents. We are told: Oh, don't worry. It is not being abused anymore. Maybe that is because they changed the definition of a query. So when they use the program anymore and abuse it, it is not a query by their definition so they don't have to tell you when they have violated the law. They are interpreting it differently. As a matter of fact, there is a secret interpretation of how this law is used by the FBI, so secret that you have got to go three floors underground to read about it. We can't tell the American public exactly how they are being spied on, but it is a particularly nefarious way. I think it is also unconstitutional. I know it is also unconstitutional. For this and many other reasons, I oppose this FISA reauthorization, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague on the Judiciary Committee and also on the Rules Committee, Chip Roy, has labored tirelessly to defend the constitutional rights of his constituents in Texas and all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. After observing the FBI and other intelligence agencies spy on Members of Congress, including Members who are in this debate right now, I am at a loss to understand why both Democrats and Republicans are arguing for a clean reauthorization of this program that has clearly been used to overstep the boundaries of the other branch of government. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), who serves on the Finance Committee and has warned us about the Orwellian dangers and powers of the central bank digital currency.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), my good friend and colleague and staunch defender of the Constitution.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what are we opposed to? We are opposed to violating the Constitution. That is what is happening with FISA. It is happening with other provisions of law and court rulings. Mr. Speaker, the third-party doctrine allows the government to go after your phone records without a warrant with a simple subpoena, go after your health records, and go after your bank records. That needs to be reformed. We need to end the mandate on electronic kill switches in cars, the Orwellian technology that would be the judge, the jury, and the executioner, shut your car off midstream and mid-drive if some AI in your dashboard determines that you shouldn't be driving at that moment, Mr. Speaker, or maybe the government determines that. There is a whole slew of ways that Americans' privacy, Fourth Amendment rights and other rights are being violated. Chief among them is the FISA 702 program. We should not do a clean reauthorization of this program. Mr. Speaker, what would happen if you vote ``no'' today? Maybe there are some people wondering: How will I vote? Maybe they don't need my vote. Maybe it is going to pass. This has to pass with two-thirds vote. What would happen if it did fail today? The Senate would go back to work. They are trying to punt. They want to go home, leave town, and leave us with the work of this. We have done our work. We have done it for years. We have sent them versions of this, and yet, they insist on another clean reauthorization. Mr. Speaker, I object to that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1789: ``The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.'' The Constitution is clear. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of our Constitution provides Congress initiatory powers for war. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of our Constitution gives the President operational powers of war to wage that war. Even if this body were to pretend that the 1973 War Powers Resolution supersedes the clear language of the Constitution, the President still has not met the conditions required by that law itself. The 1973 War Powers Resolution states plainly that the President may only introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities pursuant to three conditions: one, a declaration of war; two, specific statutory authorization; or, three, a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States. None of those conditions exist today. Iran has not attacked the United States, Congress has not declared war, and Congress has not granted specific statutory authorization. Beyond the constitutional question here lies an even more important one: Why are we going to war with Iran? We owe our military servicemembers a clear mission. American families in my district want to know: How is this going to help them pay for groceries? How does this make them any safer in their schools or in their neighborhoods? How does this help them pay for housing? Have we learned nothing from the laundry list of wars and regime- change experiments we sparked across the Middle East that have racked up at least $8 trillion in debt in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan? A sustained war with Iran will not stabilize the region. It has already ignited the region. It will radicalize new generations of terrorists, and it will send more swarms of refugees into Europe and the United States. Iran is not Venezuela. The ayatollah was not a president. He was a religious leader from a region notorious for radical Islamists, and the United States and Israel turned him into a martyr. In the process of doing so, we have already expended billions of dollars, and, more solemnly, six American families must now lay to rest their sons and daughters. For what? This administration can't even give us a straight answer as to why we launched this preemptive war. The President says we had to strike first because an Iranian strike was imminent. Meanwhile the Department of Defense conceded there was no evidence of an imminent Iranian strike. Some told us this war is about nuclear weapons, but 6 months ago, we were assured our last strike on Iran decimated their nuclear program. So which is it? I think the most candid answer came from the Secretary of State who told the press that Israel forced our hand and dragged us into this war again. That truth is the very reason why it is Congress that must decide war. If American lives are to be risked and American blood is to be shed, that decision must be debated and voted on by the Representatives and the American people, and that debate is meant to be arduous and long. That vote is meant to be hard. I have a theory. I think my colleagues don't want to go on record because we have a terrible track record of meddling in the Middle East. They don't want their name associated with this when it doesn't turn out well. However, Congress cannot be bothered with its constitutional duty because for many in this Chamber it is easier to simply allow someone else's sons and daughters to be sent to combat without their vote. To be clear, we aren't even here to declare war today. All we are voting on is a War Powers Resolution to reassert the Constitution, which is that Congress must decide questions of war, and if Congress wants war, then the Speaker should hold a vote to declare it. Some say Congress authorizes war when we pay for it when we pass the budget bill. Here is the problem: We haven't taken on the hard work of defining the mission for our sons and daughters who are going to fight. That is not in the budget bill. It never is. To the men and women who are engaged in combat, I sincerely thank you, and I pray for your safety. It is for you that I wrote this resolution. It is for you that all of us are here on this floor working so hard to force this vote so that you will have the clear mission that you deserve and so that you will know that when you achieve it, you can come home. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, Congress created the Department of Justice. Congress funds the Department of Justice. Congress is responsible for the oversight of the Department of Justice. When will we see justice? I will tell you what I have not seen. I have not seen any arrests from the revelations in the Epstein files, over 3 million documents describing horrible things, describing unspeakable things, much of it redacted. Over two dozen people have resigned, including CEOs and members of government worldwide, but I haven't seen any arrests or investigations here in the United States from this Department of Justice. Prince Andrew, Duke of York, who has since been stripped of his royal titles due to his affiliation with Jeffrey Epstein, has been arrested. Peter Mandelson, who previously served as the U.K. Ambassador to the United States, resigned in disgrace from the United Kingdom's House of Lords and the Labour Party, and he has been arrested. Former Prime Minister of Norway Thorbjorn Jagland has been charged. Yet, we don't see any charges, arrests, or investigations in the United States. What do we see? We see our FBI Director celebrating in the locker room at the Olympics overseas. It is fine to be proud of this country, but we should be proud of this country because we have a system of justice that works. Yet, we do not. Who are the men who should be investigated? I will name them right here: Leon Black: You don't even have to see past the redactions to see that this man needs to be investigated. Jes Staley: Accused of terrible things. It is right there in the files. Why is he not being investigated? Leslie Wexner: Why did the FBI list him as a co-conspirator in their own documents in a child sex trafficking case and then tell him, according to him, that they had no questions for him? Why is that? The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the DOJ and FBI to disclose to us their internal memos and emails about how they made those decisions, whether to prosecute or not prosecute. Yet, they have not delivered those memos. We still don't have the memos, documents, and emails from 2008 to explain why Jeffrey Epstein was given such a light sentence in what would have been an open-and-shut case of child sex trafficking, which allowed him to go back and recommit these terrible crimes, create hundreds more victims, and ensnare so many other people in his conspiracy. Where are those documents that describe those decisions? We need justice. We want the Department of Justice to get to work. That is what they need to do, and now. united states government under siege

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to let the American people know that this government is under siege. All three branches of this government are under siege by lobbyists and lawyers from a German company named Bayer. They spent over $9 million lobbying the executive branch and the legislative branch so that they don't have to be liable for any damages that their herbicide causes, otherwise known as Roundup. They are having some success. They haven't had any success yet in this Chamber to get that immunity. They have had some success in the State legislatures, which are also under siege, to get this immunity from liability. Madam Speaker, the Constitution guarantees people a trial if they have been harmed. Why are we contemplating going against the Constitution? The Attorney General has opined favorably for this German company in front of the Supreme Court, about getting rid of any liability that they should have for any damages. The most recent thing that we have seen is within the executive branch. By the way, the President's Chief of Staff and the President's Attorney General worked for one of the biggest lobbying firms, which has received hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars from Bayer. Maybe that is why we have seen an executive order that says that the production of this chemical from this German company is a national defense priority. We know why they are doing that. It is to keep them from having any liability. Everybody in this country deserves their day in court. This is wrong. We shouldn't succumb to the lobbyists--not in the executive branch, not in the judicial branch, certainly not here in Congress, and not in the State legislatures--but there is a lot of money at play. I implore my colleagues to resist it and to not give them immunity.

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of our amendment. This is cosponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy). I regret that we have to offer this amendment. What I am going to describe will probably sound like a bad science fiction movie, but that is what is written into law. Right now, in law that is going to be implemented, it says, for 2026 and beyond--now, the reality is that technology doesn't exist, but that doesn't keep legislators from imagining things that they would like to do to infringe on civil liberties. However, there is a law that states that every vehicle manufactured is going to have to have a kill switch in it. The car itself will monitor your driving, and if the car thinks that you are not doing a good job driving, it will disable itself, so the car dashboard becomes your judge, your jury, and your executioner. Imagine this: We have a snowstorm coming. A mom takes her kids out to go to the grocery store. It is snowing, and they are trying to get some groceries before the big storm hits. She swerves for a pothole. The neighbor's pet gets in the way, and she swerves for that. A first responder goes by. She pulls over. Her car says: You have one more swerve, and then we are going to ground you. There it is, the next thing she has to avoid, an icy patch in the road. The car has adjudicated her as unsuitable for driving. It disables the vehicle, and there she is stranded. My question is, how do you appeal your sentence once the technology in your car has judged you to be incapable of driving? Once it has disabled you and your children at the side of the road, how do you appeal that? Do you press a button on the dashboard? Do you start talking to an AI? What if it really was somebody who was drunk? Are you really going to send a police car after this disabled vehicle? Do we have the resources to do that? There are going to be so many false positives. The technology is unworkable, which is why the DOT is still in the rulemaking process, asking for feedback on how this thing could even exist. It is just a bad idea, but it is in law, so our amendment would defund that. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, drunk driving is a serious problem, but 31 States already have the technology to keep drunk drivers off the road with ignition interlock devices that they can mandate. This technology that is in the law is not going to fix the drunk driving problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my friend.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I would inquire whether the gentleman is prepared to close.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, the last time we offered this amendment, it had bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It would defund an unconstitutional and unworkable mandate that has already missed the deadlines. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this War Powers Resolution because the integrity of this institution is in question. Every Member of this House has a duty to uphold the Constitution's system of checks and balances by exercising its Article I powers entrusted to us. The executive's military exercise to capture the leader of Venezuela represents one of the most blatant usurpations of congressional authority we have seen in modern times. If we ignore it, then we are not merely acquiescing to executive overreach, we are rendering impotent our branch of government. Thomas Paine said in 1776: ``A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.'' Some of my Republican colleagues may feel obligated to acquiesce because it is our party occupying the White House. It is our party who is the Commander in Chief, but the precedents we tolerate today will inevitably be used against us tomorrow when the reins of power change hands. That is precisely why our loyalty must be to the Constitution and not to any party. If our country wants war, then Congress must vote on it. We are the voice of the people. There is a reason so many of our offices bear a Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Flag. It is a solemn reminder of the human cost of war and our obligation, not the obligation of a single executive or a private circle of special interests, to decide when to go to war. Even the executive branch knows that Congress had the authority, not them. Do you remember the night of the invasion, Mr. Speaker? It was the Attorney General who explained this was just a law enforcement action that the military was merely assisting. That is the problem we have because then it became obvious that we were undertaking a military exercise. If the unilateral use of force was not enough, then the executive has compounded this abuse by seizing Venezuela's oil revenues, selling them, and depositing that money in U.S. Treasury-controlled accounts overseas. So now the executive presumes the authority to appropriate money. That is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution is unambiguous: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law . . . '' There was no law, and there has been no law to appropriate this money that was seized in an act of war. If we allow an executive to seize foreign resources and direct spending from pillaged accounts without congressional authorization, then people no longer have a voice in their government, and Congress' power of the purse becomes moot. If the executive believes war is justified, then let Congress declare it. If the executive believes foreign assets may be seized, spent, and appropriated, then let Congress appropriate them. That is how a Republic functions.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, James Madison warned us that: ``In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive.'' Madison called it the crown jewel of Congress. The Framers understood a simple truth: To the extent that warmaking power devolves to one person, liberty dissolves. If the President believes military action against Venezuela is justified and needed, he should make the case, and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America. Let's be honest about likely outcomes. Do we truly believe that Nicolas Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq, or Syria? Previous Presidents told us to go to war over WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, that did not exist. Now, it is the same playbook, except we are told that drugs are the WMDs. If it were about drugs, we would bomb Mexico, China, or Colombia, and the President would not have pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez. This is about oil and regime change. When it comes to regime change, we have already been down this road with Venezuela with nothing to show for it. In 2019, we recognized Juan Guaido. We seized their embassy here in D.C. We were told that regime change was imminent. Years later, Maduro remains in power. Today, we are told to place our hopes in other exiled figures: Edmundo Gonzalez and Maria Corina Machado. I wish them well. I do. But Congress should not express moral sympathy in the form of a blank check for military escalation and American lives. Let's take a moment to acknowledge the contradiction at the heart of this policy. This administration tells us that the Maduro regime is made up of narcoterrorists. By escalating toward war, we would predictably create countless refugees. At the same time, this administration has moved to end temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans and deports them back to the very regime it condemns. So which is it? Are we prepared to receive swarms of the 25 million Venezuelans who will likely become refugees and lose billions in American treasure that will be used to destroy and inevitably rebuild that nation? Do we want a miniature Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere? If that cost is acceptable to this Congress, then we should vote on it, as a voice of the people, and in accordance with our Constitution. Yet today, we aren't even voting on whether to declare war or authorize the use of military force. All we are voting on is a war powers resolution that strengthens the fabric of our Republic by reasserting the plain and simple language in the Constitution that Congress must decide questions of war. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, today is an extraordinary day in this Chamber. If my colleagues will vote for this measure, then we will see justice triumph over politics. Truth will triumph over deception and obfuscation. Transparency will triumph over dark money. Partisanship will fall away to bipartisanship, and grass-roots, the people, will reclaim the people's House with this vote. It is going to be a victory for survivors; not just survivors of the Epstein sex trafficking scandal, but the 1,000 survivors who exist. Some of them are victims. They are no longer alive, and some have committed suicide. They share one thing in common: Their youth was robbed from them, and much of their lives were robbed from them. But they are claiming it back. We are going to help them claim that back. However, it is not just a victory today if this vote prevails for those survivors. It is a victory for every person, man or woman, boy or girl, who has been victimized sexually in this country. Anybody who has been a victim of sexual assault, or maybe they have been victimized by a family member, maybe it is not a billionaire, but they are all waiting and watching to see what we do today. They are wondering: If I go to mom or dad, will anything happen? If I go to the sheriff, will anything happen? We have a chance today to make something happen, something that has not happened, something that should have happened decades ago, and that is to get justice for these victims and survivors, and transparency for America. That is what this vote is about today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).