Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I know the other side is sincere. We have not questioned that here today, and I won't question their sincerity. In fact, I think they have identified at least three problems that we have in America: moral decay of our society, invasion of Americans' privacy, and our competitiveness with China. However, in this case, their cure is worse than the diseases. There are ways to get at these root problems. We just haven't taken it upon ourselves to address those root problems with actual legislative solutions that have been put forth here in Congress. For instance, Mr. Warren Davidson's Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would put a strong stake in the ground to protect Americans' privacy, whether it is from our own government or some foreign governments. That is the kind of thing we need. We need warrants in the FISA program. Our government shouldn't be able to spy on Americans without a warrant, yet they are. Let's bring that to the floor and vote on it. These are the kinds of cures we need, not the bill that is offered here today. The bill that is offered here today, even though I know it is offered genuinely, could also be named the Facebook protection and enhancement act because it is not the American people who are going to benefit most from this. It will be Facebook. Their stock is going to go up if this bill should pass the Senate. What are some ways that we could improve this bill? It should at least have a sunset. That is the only reason we are able to debate whether FISA should have warrants in it, because it sunsets. What have we observed? FISA has been abused. That is my concern with this TikTok ban. It will be abused. If it is just banning TikTok and ByteDance and copies of that, why does it need to be 13 pages long? I know they say it doesn't ban it, but it forces divestiture of the company. This sounds like when American companies try to do business in Third World countries and a dictator says: You can do business here. You just have to give me your company, and now you can continue to do business. We wouldn't let another country take over Ford Motor Company for selling Ford cars in their country, yet that is what we are wanting to do here. Again, this is a cure that is worse than the disease. Who is going to be prosecuted by this bill? Is it ByteDance or TikTok? Will they be taken to court? No. They are the target of this, but how do you elicit or effect a ban on them? By prosecuting Americans. The only way my colleagues can ban TikTok and the other companies from being here is to say what this bill says, which is the government will bring a civil action suit against you if you so much as host them here. If you have an app store that allows them to be here, and you are an American or an American company, you will be the target of this bill. Those are the only people who can be pursued under this bill. I know it is in order to go after TikTok, or so they say. I close by saying that we are sitting here with phones made in China. We are wearing suits made in China. We drove cars here with chips that are made in China. They are a foreign adversary, and, by golly, we are going to do something about it. What are we going to do? My colleagues are going to tell Americans they can't put a piece of software on their computer and can't go to certain websites that the President designates. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this well-intentioned bill because it will have bad consequences, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1071 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, the committee granted by a recorded vote of 9-3 a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6276, the Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies Act of 2023, and H. Res. 1065, Denouncing the Biden Administration's Immigration Policies. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6276, the Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies Act of 2023, under a structured rule. The rule further provides for consideration of H. Res. 1065, Denouncing the Biden Administration's Immigration Policies, under a closed rule. The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution, it shall be in order, without intervention of any point of order, to consider H. Res. 1065. Finally, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The first step in solving a problem is to acknowledge that it exists. The other side of the aisle is having a problem with that because that is what this resolution does. It describes the problem. The second part of solving a problem is to look at what the source of the problem is. That is what this resolution does. The other side of the aisle is having a problem with that. In fact, today, they opened the debate by simply complaining that this is a House Resolution and not a House bill, but this is a House Resolution full of facts, inconvenient facts to this administration. This administration, since the beginning, has passed 94 executive orders repealing border security measures that were in place and that has attracted 9.3 million illegal immigrants to our borders. This is a problem that exists. The other side of the aisle needs to quit denying that it exists, and they need to quit trying to change the topic to Ukraine. The topic today is these two bills. First among them is the resolution that draws attention to the problem at the border and lists specifically the things that this President could do to fix it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), my good friend.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I note my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, when the majority recites the names of the victims of illegal immigration and illegal immigrants and the criminals who are coming across our border, that those victims are props. I resent that. I really do because the other side of the aisle then proceeded in the next measure of the debate to enter names of victims who had been killed by criminals using guns. Let's just agree today that when we honor the names of people who have suffered at the hands of criminals, whether they be domestic or illegal immigrants--sadly, as so many are now--we don't call them props. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my friend and fellow colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, during his first 100 days in office, President Biden took 94 executive actions on immigration, including halting construction of the border wall. In August of 2022, the Biden administration formally halted President Trump's successful remain in Mexico program. In May of 2023, the administration announced that it would allow for the release of some migrants into the U.S. with no way to track them. The Biden administration also ended title 42, the CDC order that allowed the Department of Homeland Security to remove noncitizens who did not have proper travel documentation, whose entry was otherwise contrary to law, or who were apprehended at or near the border seeking unlawful entry into the United States without regard to asylum claims or proceedings. Shortly after taking office, President Biden terminated the asylum cooperative agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras to facilitate cooperation in resolving the migration crisis. The Biden administration has also abused its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to grant parole on a case-by-case basis and has instead used this authority to grant mass parole to over 1 million migrants. The Biden administration has also failed to detain migrants encountered at the southern border and has failed to use its authority to perform expedited removal of individuals illegally present in the United States. As a result, since President Biden took office, 9.3 million illegal aliens from all over the world have arrived at the southern border. The Biden administration has allowed at least 6.3 million illegal aliens to travel from the southern border to enter American communities. This is a tragedy. We need to call attention to it. President Biden says there is nothing he can do. Well, I have just listed a number of things that he has done to create this crisis, and further in this debate I will talk about some of the things that he can do, that we know he can do, things that are stated in the resolution contained in this rule to end this national security, legal, and humanitarian crisis at our border. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon), my good friend.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee resolution that we are debating today provides for the consideration of two pieces of very important legislation. The first is a commonsense bill that says if the government is heating, lighting, renting, and maintaining empty buildings where employees don't show up for work, let's do something about that. Let's find out how bad this problem is. We believe that there are over 17 agencies with occupancy of less than 25 percent. This isn't green. I thought the other side of the aisle was green. It is not green to heat empty buildings and to light empty buildings when nobody shows up for work. COVID is over. Either come to work or don't come to work, but let's not keep these buildings open if nobody is in them. That is the first bill, which was introduced by my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry). The second piece of legislation that is in this rule is very critical. It stands in sharp contrast to the State of the Union Address that we heard just last week in this Chamber where the President got up and said there was nothing he could do. Well, this resolution has a lot of inconvenient facts that refute the proposition of the President that he can't do anything. Not only can he do something, the things that he has done by executive order, over 94 of them, have been hurtful to the security of this country. We are seeing illegal immigrants drawn like a magnet to this country because of the things that President Biden has done. The resolution begins with a bunch of statements of facts, such as the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security created this problem at the border, the worst in the Nation's history, and, beginning on day one, systematically dismantled effective border security measures and interior immigration enforcement. This resolution closes by resolving that there are seven things the President can do to end this crisis: one, end the catch and release policy; two, reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols; three, enter into asylum cooperative agreements; four, end abuses of parole authority; five, detain inadmissible aliens; six, use expedited removal authority; and seven, rein in taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens. He could do all of these things tomorrow, and that is why it is important to pass this resolution, to draw attention to the problem so that it can be fixed, and to state what the solutions are. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it. The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 1071 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 16) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain aliens, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 16.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I will give the American people an overview of the debate that is happening here today. Why are there three Members of Congress controlling time on the floor? I thought there were only two parties. No. When it comes to spending, there is the ``uniparty.'' There is only one party today, and that is because Republicans and Democrats have united to kick the can down the road. They wanted to control all time for debate today, but my colleague, Mr. Roy from Texas, came down here and used a parliamentary procedure to claim time in opposition for 20 minutes so that people who take their oath to the Constitution most seriously, the people who are most concerned about debt, the people who want to represent the good folks back home, have a voice here today. And what are we doing here today? We are going to pass a CR. We are going to kick the can down the road. Is that going to solve any problems? No. It creates another crisis next week. That is what they want. They want another crisis. They want to threaten you with the shutdown so they can get more spending. Is this a clean CR? We are told you can't add anything to it. No. It deals with student aid in this CR. Are the American people concerned about student aid right now? Is that the most pressing issue to address in this spending bill? We have a crisis at the southern border. We could add one sentence to this bill that would help tremendously. Just say: None of the funds hereby appropriated may be used to disassemble border security erected by the States on our border. Put that one sentence in this continuing resolution. That would help tremendously. I am worried that we are not going to prevail today, the third group who is debating here against the uniparty. If the other side prevails, what will happen? What will happen today, this evening after this passes? Will we stay here and work hard for another week to get the 12 bills done, the 12 separate appropriation bills? No. Guess what we are going do this evening? Everybody has already got their plane tickets. They are sending us home early. Congratulations. You moved the crisis down another week. Go home. Have a 4-day weekend. We are going to let staff and a few Members in the Senate and a few Members in the House write this big bill, and then you can take it or leave it next week. Gone is any semblance of regular order from this process. What we have is what the swamp always does, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this continuing resolution that does nothing but kick the can down the road.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, there is something in this bill called tax credits, but they are also called refundable. So what is a refundable tax credit? It is welfare by a different name. We are going to give cash payments--checks--to people who don't even pay taxes. The hardworking constituents whom I represent in Kentucky are tired of getting up at 6:00 a.m., driving an hour or two to work and working their hind ends off to watch their neighbors collect these checks of which there will be more of after this bill. It is just wrong. Now, does anybody find it interesting that the Democratic leadership has not even claimed time in opposition to this bill? Why is that? Why aren't they opposed? Now, there are a few Democrats opposed. Maybe some don't think it goes far enough, or some are opposed to what they call corporate welfare in here, but, by and large, the Democrats are not opposed to this because this is an expansion of the welfare state. That is what it is. So here is my concern about that: Is it mean to give away money? No. It is not mean. We could consider it compassionate until you think about the implications. Now, they say this tax bill is paid for. What does that mean? What does it mean when it is paid for? There are some gimmicks in here that are not going to reduce the debt. This is actually going to cost. Now, by Washington, D.C., math, it is paid for. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the national debt, it will go up as a result of this bill. Everybody in here knows it. We know these are gimmicks when you call it a pay-for. This bill will increase our debt. What is that going to do? It is going to cause inflation to go up. That is going to affect everybody, including the people you are trying to give the money to for having kids. This is bad policy. I am opposed to it, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Mr. Lloyd Kenneth Rogers of Alexandria, Kentucky, who passed away on December 8, 2022, at 90 years of age. Lloyd Rogers rose from adversity to live a life of notable achievement and civil service. Lloyd was raised in an orphanage in Kentucky, the same orphanage where he met his wife Blanche whom he was married to for 65 years. Lloyd served 9 years in the U.S. Navy during the Korean war. Then he came back to Kentucky, and he ran and won a seat as judge-executive of Campbell County where he served in a civilian capacity. Then later, he worked as my director of Veterans Affairs in my congressional office where he was committed to helping other former servicemembers. Lloyd also aided in crafting legislation that most of my House colleagues are familiar with. That is right. Lloyd Rogers wrote the first draft of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, otherwise known as the REINS Act. I saw the first draft of this bill in his basement on his personal computer. He wrote it himself because he was concerned about overreach of the executive--having served his country in the military and having served as an executive himself. He gave it to the Congressman before me who introduced the bill. I pay tribute today to a mentor and a friend, and I send his family, especially his son, Dennis, my deepest condolences. I commend Lloyd for his unwavering commitment to his country and to his community.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 869 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. MASSIE. House Resolution 869 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5893, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and a closed rule, H.R. 5961, the No Funds for Iranian Terrorism Act. We have a structured rule for H.R. 5893, which makes in order 119 amendments for consideration on the floor. This rule provides the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations limited en bloc authority and provides one motion to recommit. We have a closed rule for H.R. 5961. Debate for this bill will be evenly divided over 1 hour between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the rule provides one motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support House Resolution 869 in the spirit in which it was created, one that allows for robust debate and gives Members the opportunity to submit amendments for consideration on this floor, as many amendments were included in this rule as possible. We are encouraging debate on the floor and for Members to fight for their priorities. There is absolutely no reason not to support this rule. Let's not forget what we have been committed to fighting for these last several months, bringing all 12 appropriations bills to the floor. The days of Christmas omnibus bills are over. We still have more work to do to fight against inflated budgets and the growing national debt, but the step we are taking this week that prevents a Christmas giveaway on the House floor in an omnibus is a major step in the right direction. This is what the American people expected of us. This is what we were elected to do, discuss and debate appropriation of taxpayer dollars. Speaking of appropriations, this is our 12th appropriations bill, 12 of 12. Finally, here we are. Do I wish this were done in a timelier manner? Of course. Do I wish the government functioned more efficiently for the sake of the constituents we each represent? Absolutely. We find ourselves now completing this process in the manner in which it was intended--draft, amend, debate, and vote. No Member can say today that they did not have the opportunity to participate in this process, and no Member can argue that these appropriations were not brought forward in an open and transparent manner. I applaud the relative committees and everyone in the GOP Conference who has worked so hard to bring this bill and all of the appropriations bills forward to get this work done. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to say that the Democrats spend like drunken sailors is an insult to sailors. This bill cuts wasteful spending. If there is any scorecard to be kept between Democrat Speakers and Republican Speakers, it should be on spending. I would like to note that 40 percent of all of the national debt--which, by the way, is approaching $34 trillion--40 percent of all of the national debt that exists today, from the beginning of our country until this moment, was incurred under one Speaker. That was Speaker Pelosi. If we are keeping score here, it should be about wasteful spending, deficit spending, and debts. We can blame Presidents for it, but the reality is, Congress--in fact, the House of Representatives--has the power of the purse. We need to look at ourselves when we look at that debt, and this bill is a good step toward reducing deficits. The Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies appropriations bill provides net new spending of $58.383 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, which is $23.765 billion below FY23 enacted levels. That is a large cut. Maybe it is not large enough, but it is what has upset the other side of the aisle, that is for sure. You can disguise it as anything you want, but they are really upset about this bill because it cuts spending. Not the kind of cuts to spending where we pretend to cut spending, where we have some baseline that is actually increasing spending, and then we reduce the baseline. No, I am talking about actual cuts in real dollars. That is what this bill does, and that is why they are so excited, that is why they are so angry about this rule and this bill. By the way, this rule allows for 119 amendments. When they say those are extreme amendments, what do those amendments do? They cut more. That is what the amendments do. None of those amendments increase spending. I think that is what they are upset about on the other side of the aisle is that not only have we brought forth a bill that cuts $23 billion of Federal spending, we are allowing 119 amendments to cut even more spending. Let me talk about the priorities in this bill. By the way, Congress has the power of the purse, and we complain about a lot of things the executive branch does, but then we, too, will frequently turn around and fund the things that we complain about. This bill actually defunds some of the things that we have been complaining about. I and several Members of Congress had the great fortune to share breakfast with Justice Antonin Scalia before he passed away. One of my colleagues asked Justice Scalia: When are you going to help us restore constitutional balance of government? Scalia scoffed at him. He said: What are you talking about? You are the most powerful branch. In fact, every tool you need is right there in the Constitution to restore constitutional balance of government. Another of my colleagues said, but impeachment is so unwieldy, and we can never get that through the Senate. Scalia said: I am not talking about impeachment. I am talking about the power of the purse. It is right there in the Constitution. You have it. You are the most powerful branch, and quit complaining about the things you are funding or quit funding the things you are complaining about. That is what this bill does. It eliminates more than 70 unnecessary and wasteful programs and initiatives, including 14 polarizing diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and programs. I don't find diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Constitution. It is just not in Article I, Section 8. It is not there for us to do, and so we are eliminating those programs. It defunds at least 15 executive orders. What are executive orders? Are they laws? No, they are not laws. The lawmaking authority is here. We should probably defund every executive order, but this defunds 15 of them--rules, memoranda, and other Biden administration policies that usurp our congressional authority to make law. This bill reduces wasteful spending on climate change initiatives. It prevents the FBI from using its construction balances to build a new headquarters. Why is that important? It is important because they have become weaponized against the American public, showing up at school board meetings and targeting parents and saying they are terrorists. They don't need a new headquarters. It rejects the administration's plans to replace the Department of Commerce and Department of Justice vehicle fleets with electric vehicles, saving taxpayers nearly $54 million. This is what we are doing in this bill. We are using the power of the purse. There are 119 amendments. None of those amendments increase spending. I can tell you, we went through all of them. Maybe that is why they are upset that some of their amendments didn't make it in there because maybe they were trying to spend more money. I am sorry, we are not going to do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that my colleague from Kentucky is right that Social Security is a legal and moral obligation to seniors. Let me also point out that every time we engage in deficit spending and spend too much money, we cause inflation. When we have the Fed create dollars out of thin air so we can launder them through banks and then borrow them back from ourselves, we are really causing inflation. What does inflation do to those Social Security checks? It reduces the value of those Social Security checks. This bill is actually a step in reducing inflation by reducing Federal spending, and that will be to the benefit of those seniors who are going to be living on a fixed income. We all know there is a cost-of-living adjustment applied to Social Security, but the reality is it is not keeping up with inflation. Inflation is so rampant now due to the spending that we have engaged in in Congress. There is a moral imperative for us to reduce spending because it trickles down. Inflation is very detrimental to our seniors. That is why we have to pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee.