Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would stop the District of Columbia from taking any action to prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing, using, or transporting a firearm. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that struck down the D.C. handgun ban, as well as the unconstitutional gunlock provision, it is still difficult for D.C. residents to exercise their God-given right to bear arms. Congress has the authority to legislate in this area pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to ``exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia. Through unreasonable regulation, arbitrary time limits and waiting periods, and a ridiculous registration renewal process for guns that have already been registered, the government bureaucrats in the District continue to interfere with the D.C. residents' rights to self- defense. As The Washington Times reported earlier this year, the District of Columbia has passed the first law ever in the United States that requires a citizen who has already legally registered a gun to pay a fee for re-registration, go to police headquarters, and submit to invasive fingerprinting and photographing. This is pure harassment. Why would the D.C. government want to punish and harass law-abiding citizens who simply want to defend themselves? As everyone with even the smallest bit of common sense knows, criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. They will get guns any way they can. Does anyone actually believe that strict gun controls laws will prevent criminals from getting guns? Strict gun control laws do nothing but prevent good people from being able to protect themselves and their families in the event of a robbery, home invasion, or other crime. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. MASSIE. As John Lott, author of ``More Guns, Less Crime,'' says: The District of Columbia should have learned the problems with gun control the hard way. There is only 1 year after D.C.'s handgun ban went into effect in 1977 where its murder rate was as low as it was prior to the ban. The D.C. murder rate rose dramatically, relative to other cities after the ban, with its murder rate ranking either number one or number two among the 50 most populous U.S. cities for half the time the ban was in effect and always in the top two-thirds. However, as soon as the ban and, more importantly, the gunlock regulations were struck down in 2008, the murder rate fell, dropping by 50 percent over the next 4 years. Indeed, every place in the world that has banned guns has seen an increase in murder rates. This experience can be seen worldwide. Island nations supposedly present ideal environments for gun control because it is relatively easy for them to control their borders, but countries such as Great Britain, Ireland, and Jamaica have experienced large increases in murder and violent crime after gun bans. For example, after handguns were banned in 1997, the number of deaths and injuries from gun crimes in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the 7 years from 1998 to 2005. Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that the other side of the aisle, when we talk about voting rights, they are very opposed to voter ID and to photograph IDs for voting. I think they would be very opposed to fingerprinting and photographing in order to exercise that basic fundamental right to vote, which is what they often say. Well, I would remind them that the Second Amendment says a right to bear arms is a basic right. If they argue that fingerprinting and photographing is invasive and disproportionately disenfranchises minorities from that basic right to vote, how can they not argue the same thing about the basic right to own and bear guns? In closing, my amendment states that none of the funds made available in this bill to the District of Columbia will be used by the D.C. government to prohibit the activity of people in possessing, acquiring, using, selling, or transporting firearms. It defunds four laws passed in the wake of Heller that constitute an attempt by the D.C. government to overrule and ignore the Heller decision. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I certainly disagree with the gentleman's points there. First of all, Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate and exercise over all matters in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, if a law enforcement officer in the District of Columbia is not already familiar with Federal laws, then I question whether he should be a law enforcement officer. But most of all, I would make the point that the underlying bill already contains language that is virtually identical in form to the amendment that I have offered. For instance, section 809 states that ``none of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act.'' There are multiple examples in the underlying bill where the structure of those portions of the bill are identical to my amendment and require knowledge of law.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that would stop the District of Columbia from taking any action to prevent law- abiding citizens from possessing, using, or transporting a firearm. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that struck down the unconstitutional D.C. handgun ban, it is still difficult for D.C. residents to exercise their God-given right to bear arms. Congress has the authority to legislate in this area pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority ``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia. Through unreasonable regulation, arbitrary time limits and waiting periods, and a ridiculous registration renewal process for guns that have already been registered, the government bureaucrats of the District continue to interfere with the District's residents' right to self-defense. As the Washington Times reported earlier this year, the District of Columbia has passed the first law ever in the United States that requires a citizen who has already legally registered a gun to pay for reregistration, go to police headquarters and submit to invasive photographing and fingerprinting. This is pure harassment. Why would the D.C. government want to punish and harass law-abiding citizens who simply want to defend themselves from criminals? As everyone with even the smallest bit of common sense knows, criminals, by definition, don't care about the laws. They will get the guns any way they can. Does anyone actually believe that strict gun control laws will prevent criminals from getting guns? Strict gun control laws do nothing but prevent good people from being able to protect themselves and their families in the event of a robbery, home invasion, or other crime. I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas is correct. The American people can be kept safe, and we can follow the Constitution. We don't have to disregard it, and that is what this amendment would allow us to do, to keep the American people safe while protecting their civil liberties. There are two provisions here, and they both close backdoors. One backdoor currently allows, without probable cause or a warrant, for the NSA to query a database of American persons' information. This is wrong. They should have a warrant. The other part of this amendment would prevent money from being spent to fund companies to put backdoors into products. When the government causes these companies to intentionally make defects in their products, they make Americans less safe. They make Americans' data less safe, and they compromise the quality of American goods overseas. Ultimately, this is about the Constitution, and if you believe in the Constitution, if you believe that it is still valid, if you think we can honor the Fourth Amendment and that we can still keep people safe, then I urge you to vote for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the American people are sick of being spied on. Our Founding Fathers wrote an important provision into the Bill of Rights--the Fourth Amendment--and that requires probable cause and a warrant before the government and government agents can snoop on any American. During the debate on the USA FREEDOM Act, we knew that more work was needed to ensure Americans' privacy rights are protected. That is why our bipartisan group has joined together to shut surveillance backdoors that do not meet the expectations of our constituents or the standards required by the Constitution. At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I will submit for the Record the letter from the Director of National Intelligence that my colleague from California referred to. Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC, Mar. 28, 2014. Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Wyden: During the January 29, 2014, Worldwide Threat hearing, you cited declassified court documents from 2011 indicating that NSA sought and obtained the authority to query information collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), using U.S. person identifiers, and asked whether any such queries had been conducted for the communications of specific Americans. As reflected in the August 2013 Semiannual Assessment of Compliance with Procedures and Guidelines Issued Pursuant to Section 702, which we declassified and released on August 21. 2013, there have been queries, using U.S. person identifiers, of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign intelligence by targeting non U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. pursuant to Section 702 of FISA. These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the FISA Court as consistent with the statute and the Fourth Amendment. As you know, when Congress reauthorized Section 702, the proposal to restrict such queries was specifically raised and ultimately not adopted. For further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre M. Walsh in the Office of Legislative Affairs, at (703) 275-2474. Sincerely, James R. Clapper.

Mr. MASSIE. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is correct. This was in the original FREEDOM Act, and it was stripped out in his committee. That is why many of the Members who originally sponsored the FREEDOM Act did not, in fact, vote for the final version, and I would argue that it was not legislated. The final version of the FREEDOM Act was done behind closed doors, and when it came to this floor, we would have loved to have offered amendments, but the rules were written such that we could not amend it. Legislators from 435 districts had no say in the final bill, and that is why we are here tonight with this amendment, to reinsert this provision which over 150 Members of this body sponsored. At this point, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. The Clerk read it, but if you may, it says: None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of section 7606 (``Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research'') of the Agricultural Act of 2014 by the Department of Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration. My amendment at the desk says nothing about seeds.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, officials in my home State of Kentucky were recently forced to file a lawsuit in Federal Court to compel the DEA to release industrial hemp seeds intended for a university research pilot program. What a waste of time, money, and the court system's limited resources. States can't launch industrial hemp pilot programs if the DEA seizes the seeds before they reach their destination. And although the DEA did recently agree to release the seeds, they still insist that they have the authority to regulate industrial hemp--which was clearly conveyed to the States in the farm bill. Isn't it ironic that thousands of pounds of cocaine and heroin are somehow passing across our borders every week, yet the DEA thinks that seizing hemp seeds, industrial hemp seeds, is a worthwhile use of its time and resources? I say it is not. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I am not here to talk about brownies and biscuits. I am here to talk about a serious medical issue, cannabidiol, the CBD oil that comes from the cannabis plant. It is very low in THC and is nonpsychoactive. Research has shown very promising results in children with epilepsy, autism, and other neurological disorders. CBD oil is also showing promising results in adults with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and PTSD. We need to remove the roadblocks to these potential medical breakthroughs. This amendment would do that. The Federal Government should not countermand State law. In this case, the absurd result of that is that medical discoveries are being blocked. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with four of my colleagues to offer a bipartisan amendment that simply requires the DEA to comply with Federal law. Despite clear language in the recently passed farm bill that specifically allows State agricultural agencies and universities to grow industrial hemp for research, the DEA decided to ignore the plain text of a Federal statute. Officials in my home State of Kentucky were recently forced to file a lawsuit in Federal court to compel the DEA to release industrial hemp seeds intended for a university research pilot program. What a waste of time, money, and the court system's limited resources. States cannot launch industrial hemp pilot programs if the DEA seizes the seeds before they reach their destination, and although the DEA did recently agree to release the seeds, my amendment ensures that this type of DEA action won't happen again. If this were simply about seeds, I wouldn't be here. We have got that resolved, but there are further issues. There are more issues. For instance, the DEA has been very ambiguous on whether they are going to assert authority to say that hemp can't be grown on private property. Listen, where else are you going to grow it? It is not like the government has farms. The farm bill is clear on this language. The farm bill says that the State authorities shall register these sites, not the DEA; yet the DEA refuses to acknowledge that. Furthermore, with regard to the seeds, the DEA requires--and this I find ridiculous--that the seeds--and these are industrial hemp seeds with no active THC--must be kept under lock and key, with only three keys available. The way we have got these stored in Kentucky now is you put your handprint on the door and you can get into these hemp seeds. You want to know how ridiculous that is? By the end of this growing season, we are going to have thousands of pounds of hemp seeds, not 250 pounds of hemp seeds. The question is: What is the DEA going to do going forward? We just want them to simply obey the law. The fact is that growing hemp for research purposes has always been legal. So why hasn't it been done? Because it required interfacing with the DEA, and the DEA purposely used regulations to stop any of this research. The farm bill that I cosponsored was to clear the way for hemp industrial research, not to perpetuate a broken process where the DEA obfuscates and delays, but to give that freedom to State and local governments. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MASSIE. That is not my amendment that you just read.

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