Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Yes. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. MASSIE. I hope the chairman will vote for my amendment. Basically, it just says that we are going to enforce the farm bill, the language of the farm bill, and the farm bill is very clear in its language. It says no other Federal law withstanding. Isn't it ironic that thousands of pounds of cocaine and heroin are somehow passing our borders every week? Yet the DEA thinks that seizing industrial hemp seeds in Kentucky is worthwhile use of its time and resources. Furthermore, what are they going to do this fall when we harvest the hemp seeds? There is no import-export there. These are Kentucky hemp seeds once they are grown in Kentucky. There is no Federal nexus this fall, so I hope that the farm bill and the language in the farm bill will be honored. We voted for it. It was signed by the President. Our amendment is simple. It states that no funds may be used by the Department of Justice or Drug Enforcement Administration to violate the clear language of the farm bill, which says: States are allowed to grow and cultivate industrial hemp if the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated for the purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research. The DEA is not above Congress. It is not above the law. Executive branch agencies like the DEA must follow the laws passed by the legislative branch. Please join us in support of this commonsense, reasonable amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I want to briefly tell you about a young boy who grew up in modest surroundings in rural Kentucky. Although he had no money, he was inspired to invent. So he collected junk to build his inventions--broken clocks, radios, vacuum cleaners. Who knows, maybe one day he could assemble this junk into an invention that would allow him to pull himself out of his humdrum environment. He was inspired to invent by stories of Edison, Ford, and Tesla. In the seventh grade, he invented this robot arm that you see here, which won him a prize at the science fair. He even invented a flower pot that would water itself for his grandmother. He went on to college, where he met other inventors, inspired, again, not just by creativity but by the fact that they can make an honest living by improving the lives of others. One of his inventor friends invented a robot that vacuums floors for millions of people now. This boy went on to invent a touch interface for computers, obtain 29 patents, raise venture capital, and create dozen of jobs. His story is only possible in America, where our robust intellectual property system and judicial system work together to protect the property rights of inventors. Knowing this and relying on this, many inventors dedicate their entire lives to inventing things that will improve and extend the lives of others. Today's patent reform bill is a serious threat to American inventors. That is why inventors are urging us not to pass this bill today. It will extinguish creativity and invention in America. Recklessly weakening the patent system, as this bill does, will deprive inventors of income and a livelihood. They will pursue other careers. As the role models for young inventors quietly fade into history, fewer young students will pursue invention. A decade from now, Congress will further lament the lack of interest among the next generation in science, engineering, technology, and math, arrogantly unaware that it was Congress that killed that interest today with this bill, should it pass. How do I know this boy's story so well? How can I anticipate the unintended consequences of this bill? I am the boy in this picture, and that was my story. It would be shameful and wrong to kick out the ladder from our next generation of inventors, as this bill would do; but if my story doesn't compel you, please listen to the words of Dean Kamen. Pick your favorite inventor in history--Tesla, Edison--and Dean Kamen is that inventor of our time. Perhaps you know him as the inventor of the Segway, but he has invented a dialysis machine, an insulin pump, and a self-balancing wheelchair. These inventions have improved the lives of millions of people all over the world. Here is what Mr. Kamen has to say about this very legislation: Adding uncertainty and cost to getting and maintaining patents will be the largest single cause of the decline of innovation and, therefore, of the economy in this country that I've seen in my lifetime. Mr. Kamen doesn't just invent. He inspires the next generation to invent with his America FIRST Robotics Competition that millions of students have participated in. He inspires the next generation to invent with his robotics contest.

Mr. MASSIE. I am scheduled to speak at two of these robotic contests in Kentucky this weekend, not to inspire these kids to be politicians, but to inspire them to be inventors. Should this bill pass, should we kick the ladder out from our young inventors, it is going to be hard for me to face them Saturday. I urge my colleagues to listen to the inventors of America, who are pleading to them to oppose this bill.

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

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, section 5 of this bill shares a common defect with the rest of this bill. Although well-intentioned, it will have bad effects on our patent law. In fact, it will affect legitimate patent-holders as much or worse than it would patent trolls. Section 5 of H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act, is entitled, ``Customer- Suit Exemption.'' This section inserts a new provision into the patent code: section 296, Stay of Action Against the Customer. The new section 296 would require a court to grant a motion to stay a patent infringement suit against certain ``covered customers.'' While well-intentioned, this section of the bill was not drafted in a careful and narrowly tailored way so as to achieve its purpose, which is to protect innocent customers, i.e., small retail customers involved in patent lawsuits. Instead, the broad language of section 296 would likely insert more confusion into an already complicated patent infringement suit process and cause harmful unintended consequences. For example, section 5's weakening of the right to sue downstream from the original manufacturer opens a new loophole for corporations to exploit--a huge loophole. It could allow a large computer corporation, for instance, to hide behind third-party chip manufacturers or third- party developers and thus continue to ship infringing products. The large computer corporation could thus construct a shadow shield against injunctions. The injunction tool is one of the most effective weapons in an individual, independent inventor's arsenal. We should not protect those in the supply chain who stand to benefit the most from stealing patents. Patent experts oppose section 5 of H.R. 3309. My amendment would strike section 5 of H.R. 3309. Let me tell you what David Kappos, former Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, said about this bill, particularly section 5, which my amendment seeks to strike: I am most concerned about the covered customer stay provision which, as written, is significantly overbroad. While we all want to help relieve innocent retailers and coffee shops from being taken hostage in patent infringement suits, we should not open up the patent system to abuse by others who will take advantage of this provision to shift liability up or down the product creation and distribution chain to thwart legitimate innovators from enforcing their patent rights. We should listen to the experts. This was the former Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the United States Patent Office. He is telling us that this part of the bill is drafted overly broad and has unintended consequences. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, section 5 remains overly broad. The former Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office told me as early as yesterday that we are playing with fire with section 5. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose section 5 and to support my amendment. Only in Washington, D.C., would you see the kind of hubris that is displayed here. We portend that we are going to protect the innovators--the people who invent in this country--yet we are ignoring their pleas to protect their rights. In this very bill, we will take away their rights while maintaining that we are helping them. If you must vote for this bill, please vote for this amendment. This amendment will improve the bill considerably. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013. I am proud to cosponsor this bill. Kentucky's Fourth District is home to 276 miles of the Ohio River and three locks and dams. As such, we are willing hosts to millions of tons of interstate commerce. Pursuant to our Constitution, there is a Federal role in transportation and infrastructure. Transportation is one of the few things that Congress actually should spend money on. In fact, the constitutionality of this issue was settled two centuries ago during our Nation's infancy, in 1824, with the landmark Supreme Court decision ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden. A congressional precedent for maintaining national infrastructure was established with the Rivers and Harbors Act of that same year. As long as our country has been in existence, transportation has been a priority, especially waterborne transportation. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important bill.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1961 to save a historical treasure, the Delta Queen steamboat. I grew up in Kentucky's Fourth District. We have 276 miles of the Ohio River. My memories are rich with the images of this great vessel going up and down the river. These are images that my four children will never have, unless we pass this bill today. Just think of the inspiration and majesty of this ship. It's a ship that's rich with history. Her debut cruise took place on June 2, 1927. For the next 13 years, she ran overnight trips between Sacramento and San Francisco. From 1940 to 1946, she served the U.S. Navy as a floating barracks and a training facility in the San Francisco Bay. She traveled the Ohio River for 60 years. In 1966, Congress passed the Safety of Life at Seas Act. Not ``at rivers,'' but ``at seas.'' This ship was caught up in an overly broad regulation. We seek to right that wrong today. I just want to speak to the bipartisan nature of this bill. I serve on the Transportation Committee. It received overwhelming bipartisan support, and no rules were suspended to debate this bill within the committee. In fact, in 2008, as Congressman Chabot from Ohio stated, the Senate bill to extend this exemption garnered bipartisan support from Senator Mitch McConnell and then-Senator Barack Obama. Please help us save the Delta Queen by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 1961.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of Private First Class Ernest Edison West of the United States Army. Private First Class West served with Company L, 25th Infantry Division and was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action in Korea on October 12, 1952. When Private First Class West's patrol was ambushed, he ordered his fellow men to withdraw while he braved enemy fire to reach and assist the patrol leader. In the evacuation process, he and his wounded leader came under intense enemy attack. Private First Class West used his body to shield the wounded officer and killed the attacking enemy. Although Private First Class West lost his eye and was seriously wounded, he returned again through intense fire to help evacuate more wounded soldiers. Because of his valiant efforts and extraordinary military spirit, I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Private First Class Ernest Edison West of Kentucky's Fourth District.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the words from my good colleague from Arkansas, and I certainly appreciate the service that he's provided to our country and the service that others have provided there in the mission of keeping the peace. If we count the two chairmen of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, Egypt has been led by five different men in the past 2\1/2\ years. So five of them in 2\1/2\ years, only one of them democratically elected. I would say this is not a stable environment, and so my constituents have concerns that we don't escalate military activity in the region. My good friend is correct about the intention of the amendment that I have offered. My amendment, again, is intended to prevent the U.S. military from engaging in offensive operations in Egypt and to prevent the Defense Department from providing assistance to the Egyptian paramilitary or terrorist groups. It's certainly not intended to prevent the peacekeeping missions or the current military missions there or, most of all, protecting our embassies. We want to make sure that we allow the service of our good marines over there in Egypt. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MASSIE. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. To allay your concerns and the concerns of the gentlelady who spoke, the intentions are the intentions that have been mentioned here, and the verbiage that was allowed in the amendment process was very difficult to convey the intention. It would be our intention to work through the process going forward in conference or otherwise to ameliorate the language and to ameliorate your concerns.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There's been some misunderstanding about what my amendment does. I welcome the opportunity to clarify the intention of the amendment. I realize that Members of the House have different views about the current U.S. relationship with the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian military. This amendment is not designed to affect the current military-to-military relationship with Egypt. It is not intended to prevent U.S. participation in the Multinational Forward Observer mission in the Sinai, in other words, the peacekeeping mission. It is not intended to curtail the activities of the Office of Military Cooperation. It is not intended to prevent U.S. military exercises with the Egyptian military. And it is certainly not intended to prevent U.S. marines from providing security at our diplomatic facilities in Egypt. My amendment is quite simple. It's intended to prevent the U.S. military from engaging in offensive operations in Egypt and to prevent the Defense Department from providing assistance to Egyptian paramilitary or terrorist groups. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about some of the legal products that you can buy in the United States that are made with hemp. You can buy paper, clothes, rope, food, hundreds of products. Even car panels are made out of hemp. But the great tragedy is that we cannot grow hemp in Kentucky. We can't grow industrial hemp anywhere in the United States, and so we have to import it. Where do we import it from? It comes from China. It comes from Canada. It comes from Europe. There are many uses for hemp. There are 30 countries on this globe that can grow hemp. In fact, I believe every industrialized country in the world grows hemp. Farmers in Kentucky grew hemp during World War II. Hemp was grown in large quantities in my State of Kentucky. Canvas and rope made from hemp helped with the war effort. So this is not about drugs. This is not about a drugs bill. This is about jobs. And for Kentucky farmers, we need the opportunity. We need the opportunity to compete globally in a global market, and we shouldn't be denied this outlet for another productive crop in Kentucky.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to implore my fellow Congressmen to wake up. Can't we see what's happening? In just the past month, we discovered that the NSA is snooping on millions of innocent Americans using the PATRIOT Act. Congress wrote the PATRIOT Act. The IRS is targeting conservative organizations using the Tax Code. Congress created the Tax Code. And the DHS has stockpiled 200 million hollow-point bullets. Congress just funded DHS last week. Do you want me to be surprised? I'm not surprised. I'm outraged. But what's happening here? In each case of executive overreach, Congress gave an inch and the executive branch took a mile. When our civil liberties are stolen, Congress investigates and expresses righteous indignation, but all too often Congress then turns around and funds and enables this unconstitutional behavior. If we don't reverse this trend, we can kiss our civil liberties good-bye. The Constitution embodies American principles that men and women fought and died to protect. We swore an oath to protect it. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to reflect on the damage that CISPA, the PATRIOT Act, and the NDAA have wrought on our civil liberties and implore my fellow Members to uphold the constitutional rights they swore to protect. Don't yield one inch.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. I rise today in strong opposition to the recent Supreme Court decision in Maryland v. King. As Justice Scalia warned in his brilliant dissent, a consequence of this week's ruling is that your DNA can now ``be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, or for whatever reason.'' On the day I was sworn in, I pledged that I would be a staunch defender of individual liberties and of our Constitution, an unwavering advocate for freedom. This includes upholding the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution that protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. I strongly disagree with the five Justices in this case who held that DNA collection is just ``another metric of identification,'' like ``a name or a fingerprint.'' It is not. It's an intrusive invasion of privacy and property that should never be allowed before a person has even been tried, convicted, or served a warrant. As my Senate colleague Ted Cruz warned, ``unchecked government power and intrusive personal databases . . . pose real risks to our liberty.''

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. MASSIE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for sharing that with us. I think all too often we don't listen as much to our constituents as we should; and on this issue, it's very important because those are in fact the people who are going to bear the burden of this new tax. And I will call it a new tax. It's unprecedented in our Constitution and in the history of this country. I want to end this discussion tonight the way it began and the way I said it would end. No single individual who's a proponent of this tax has told me that it's going to help the economy. In fact, when I point out that it will increase taxes on consumers, when it will increase the burden on small businesses, and when it will apply pressure to offshore or online retailers, they all ultimately concede those points. This is not good for our country. The resistance to this bill comes from our constituents, and it's also bipartisan as well. So hopefully by bringing light to this today, we will begin the conversation, begin the debate that all too often doesn't happen out in the open and shed some light on this issue. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MASSIE. Well, those comments bring up a very good point, and so do your comments. If this is a finger on the scale for higher taxes, States get to arbitrate and decide what gets taxed in their State. So right now we have exemptions for farm products and whatnot, but some States tax professional services in the transaction. And, of course, this bill opens up financial service transactions in one State to consumers in another State. But where does this end? Senator Baucus stated in the other Chamber that not just the financial world would be open to taxes on their services, but also possibly attorneys, architects, engineers and accountants. One can only imagine, by not asking the States to do anything to simplify their system in return for the benefit of having out-of-state businesses collect taxes for them, we're giving carte blanche to the States to impose even more taxes on business. Again, I think I'd like to hear a few more comments from our constituents.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that Mr. Daines represents the great State of Montana, which operates with a lean government and has, so far, got by without a sales tax. That's the great thing about these United States of America. We have 50 States competing with different models for how to run their governments. This tax, as I call it, the interstate commerce tax, is more about harmonizing tax laws across the United States and taking away the competition between States. Now, my fair State of Kentucky has a sales tax of 6 percent. But I don't think it's fair that we impose a sales tax on the State of Montana when they've worked very hard not to have one. Their businesses aren't subjected ever to a sales tax audit if they don't have to collect a sales tax. So I think he's too modest in not reminding us that he's coming from the State of Montana that has no sales tax. This Marketplace Fairness Act could be called the ``Offshore Online Retailers Act,'' because, while as Congressmen and Senators we can force the States to collect these taxes, we can't go into other countries and force them to collect taxes. So what will happen is a lot of our online retailers will move across the border where they enjoy the advantage of collecting those sales taxes, and there's no way to reach them and impose that tax upon them. Now, some say this is not a new tax, don't call it a new tax, while others say that it's not a tax increase, don't call this a tax increase. Well, I say if it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it's a duck. I'm new to Congress, but if at the end of a transaction, I have less money in my wallet and the government has the money in their coffers, I call it a tax. Now, some will say, look, consumers already owe this tax. At the end of the year on April 15, they are supposed to pay the sales tax that wasn't collected in other States. But do you know what? That's just not true. They don't owe a sales tax because States long ago conceded that they don't have any authority to tax an event which occurs outside of their physical borders. They just can't do it without a physical presence. But States resented that they couldn't tax in other States, so they created something called a use tax. I say the use tax is actually a contrived tax. They know they can't tax an event outside of their borders, so they try to tax an event inside of their borders, which is the use of a product. But it's contrived in the sense that it's only owed if you didn't pay a tax on it somewhere else already. So what kind of a tax is that? I'll tell you what it is: it's an uncollectible tax. And the States haven't exerted much effort in collecting that tax. We are not here to become tax collectors for the States. I just want to remind the States that. Also, I want to talk a little bit more about my district. A large portion of my district is rural. We don't have stores to buy everything that we would like to be able to purchase. A lot of folks go online. A lot of folks are disabled and can't get to the store to go online. This is a regressive tax. This will punish those individuals who have the least mobility because they're online shopping. It also diminishes opportunities for businesses in rural areas by taxing those businesses that weren't taxed before that don't have a ready marketplace immediately in their vicinity. Look, we've heard from Big Business, we've heard from lobbyists, and we've heard from State governments. But there's somebody absent from this debate so far, and it's our constituents. I think we need to hear from them. And with that, and to address that issue, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you to the gentleman from Florida. He makes an excellent point on the sales tax audit burden on small businesses. I'd like to give you two examples of companies in my district. These are, literally, mom-and-pop shops. One of them, the wife is the CFO and the husband runs the company; and in the other one, the father owns the company and the son works there every day. They were both subjected to sales tax audits in one State. Let me tell you how the sales tax audit begins and how it ends. So the way it began was with a phone call. And that, for many small businesses, is the worst phone call of their life, of their business life, because they know what they're going to have to endure. So let me give you the example of this farm store that underwent a sales tax audit. He was required to prove that every sales tax-exempt sale that he made in the previous years was, in fact, exempt from sales tax under Kentucky State law. The sales tax auditors will pursue you to the end of the Earth if they think there's another dime to be found, so they pursued him with much vigor. He spent weeks looking for records trying to prove that these were, in fact, sales tax-exempt, because if they were not, he owed the sales tax on all of those sales. How does this kind of audit end? It ends with a white flag. There's no way to prove, there's no way to find every shred of paper for every transaction that you've ever had in the past years, so you finally settle with the sales tax auditors. Can you imagine that? You'd be open to sales tax audits, which I've just described, in 45 different States. Now, maybe it only happens once every 10 years in your State; maybe that's the average. But, on average, you'll get 4\1/2\ sales tax audits a year, which brings me to the next small business in my district, where the wife is the CFO. This business was subjected to a sales tax audit and an IRS audit in the same year, in fact, this year. This business owner came to me and said, Can you pass a bill that would keep me from having to go through two audits in the same year? I mean, it's just not fair. I've got a State tax audit and a Federal audit in the same year. This is killing my business. My wife can't work on anything but these audits. Can you imagine if that business is now subjected to 45 audits in 45 different States? I just can't let this individual down. And what we're talking about, sales tax audits, it's up to the States to decide what's sales tax exempt and what's not, and every State has a different rule. And the only way to enforce these rules and to know if you've complied--is it for a farm? is it for education? is it for resale?--is for the retailer to submit all of those sales records, information, if you will, on the individual that purchased them to the State where the individual lives. This is ripe for corruption, just as we saw with the IRS recently. Now they know what music you've downloaded, what movies you've downloaded. Maybe you bought some gun magazines. They're going to know about all of this, and it's just ripe for corruption and for exploitation. I'd like to yield to my good friend and colleague from the State of Montana (Mr. Daines).