Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania. I do, as he knows, support this amendment because it has become necessary to put restrictions like this on the bill because the ATF, under President Obama, did attempt to prohibit 223 ammunition, which is used in one of the most popular and widely available sporting rifles in the United States.
The new Director of the ATF, Tom Brandon, I want to thank him and professional law enforcement officers at the ATF. They came in to see me when I was the brand-new chairman of the subcommittee earlier this year.
We had a very good visit. We looked at the statute, and Director Brandon and his chief counsel understood that the guidelines that they had created went beyond the statute. They recognized that they were going to have a very difficult budget year if they persisted in this effort to interfere with American's lawful, constitutional Second Amendment rights.
I was very grateful that Director Brandon chose to drop their attempted prohibition on 223 ammunition after our meeting and in response to the 80,000 letters and all the requests from Members of Congress. The ATF did the right thing here by dropping their attempt to ban ammunition.
Mr. Massie's amendment is necessary because I think it is important to make it clear that we don't want the Obama administration coming back and attempting to ban ammunition again.
I remember, as a student of American history, that General Gage, in Boston, didn't go after the weapons first. They went after the powder and the ammunition, I believe, Mr. Massie, in Lexington and Concord.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Yes, but the ATF was attempting to use--the statute says you cannot use armor-piercing ammunition that includes depleted uranium, beryllium, and it has some very specific things.
As Mr. Massie said, the Congress was focused on the content of the bullet, rather than what type of weapon it could be used in. In the ATF's guideline, actually, the ATF created a legal framework for analysis, which is fairly standard for this administration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Let me say that it is important to have Mr. Massie's language in this bill because the ATF, in this instance, just as in the EPA's attempt to regulate every square inch of the United States by saying navigable waters include any piece of ground on which the water drains off into a navigable stream, the EPA, the ATF, the Obama administration routinely uses what they call a legal framework for analysis to expand their executive authority far beyond what Congress intended.
In this instance, I was successful with the help of my colleagues. As the new chairman of the subcommittee, I was successful in persuading Director Brandon and the ATF to drop their attempt to ban 223 ammunition, and I will be monitoring them closely. I will be exercising very aggressive oversight over the ATF to ensure that they don't try it again.
I welcome Mr. Massie's amendment to help drive home the point that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is written in plain English, and it guarantees, absolutely, the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.
I welcome your amendment, Mr. Massie, and encourage Members to support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
My colleague, Mr. Engel, I think may not have the exact amendment in front of him because all Mr. Massie is attempting to do is enforce existing law and make it clear that the ATF has to enforce existing law, as written, and that armor-piercing ammunition cannot be used in handguns.
That is what the law says. The law says an armor-piercing round is one that uses depleted uranium or other materials and is used in a handgun. And that is all this amendment says.
So we, by accepting this amendment, are enforcing existing law, which is to prevent the use of armor-piercing ammunition in a handgun. So it is important that, I think, everyone understand that that is all this amendment is intended to do. And I will, as subcommittee chairman, make certain that the ATF does not interfere with Americans' Second Amendment rights under the Constitution and that the ATF is enforcing the law, as written by Congress, which is precisely what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) is doing, and I urge Members to support his amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Madam Chair, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment, and it is necessary because the ATF, once again, here attempted to ban ammunition that could be used in a handgun that is otherwise commonly available for rifles. In the statute, the Congress intended to prohibit the use of armor-piercing ammunition for handguns. So the gentleman's amendment is necessary, and I strongly support the amendment as, again, additional protection for Americans' constitutional Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
I would point out to my good friend from Pennsylvania that at the Texas Capitol, concealed-carry permit holders are actually given a separate line so they can get into the capitol even more rapidly because law enforcement officers in Texas recognize that a concealed-carry permit holder is their best backup because they have had a background check and they are trained in the use of the weapon.
I coauthored the legislation in Texas in the 1990s to allow Texans to get a concealed-carry permit, and we have prevented a lot of crimes and saved a lot of lives. I don't think there has even been a fistfight among concealed-carry permit holders in Texas in all these years. They are given expedited access to the Texas Capitol because law enforcement recognizes an honest, law-abiding American with a concealed-carry permit is their best friend.
I support the gentleman's amendment, and I urge its passage.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I wish to join in opposition to this amendment. I share my colleague's concern about government spending, but two-thirds of the problem is in Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and in ObamaCare, the national debt, the interest on the debt. That is what is drowning us.
We, in the appropriations process, handle about a third of Federal spending, and we have cut spending here in this bill. We have limited resources; and as chairman of the subcommittee, we have prioritized that money to go, first and foremost, to law enforcement.
The gentleman's amendment would cut $683 million out of Federal law enforcement, which is something I just simply cannot support. The gentleman's amendment would cut $212 million out of the FBI and just eviscerate their ability to deal with cyber espionage and to deal with terrorism. The gentleman's amendment would cut $450 million from NASA, essentially crippling our efforts to get Americans back into space on an American-made rocket, something we simply have to do as quickly as possible.
We have in our bill prioritized the limited, very precious, and scarce, hard-earned tax dollars that our constituents have entrusted us with and made sure that Federal law enforcement is taken care of, scientific research is protected, NASA is protected. But first and foremost, we protected public safety with the way we have prioritized our spending.
I have to urge Members to oppose this amendment because we have already followed the Dave Ramsey approach in spending money where it is most needed. We have got to focus on the two-thirds of the problem that is drowning us: the mandatory, automatic spending programs--Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid--that are drowning this economy. That is where the deficit and the debt is coming from. While we continue to do our part in Appropriations on the one-third that we have got control over, we are continuing to cut and prioritize, let's focus on the two-thirds that is actually hurting the American economy. I would urge Members to oppose this amendment and defeat it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in support of the amendment. I strongly support Mr. King's amendment because what the President has done is clearly illegal.
The President does not have the ability to change the law by himself. As my good friend from Philadelphia points out, one House of Congress cannot change the law all by itself. And similarly, the Chief Executive cannot change the law enacted by Congress and signed by the President all by himself.
The law is very clear that people who are in the country illegally, who have violated the immigration laws of the United States, need to be deported. And the President by this illegal executive action has attempted to override the Federal law enacted by Congress and signed by previous Presidents.
The District Court agreed that President Obama's action is illegal and that an injunction lies against it. The District Court suspended the President's executive order because it was illegal. The Federal Court of Appeals in New Orleans suspended the President's executive order because it was illegal. We expect the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to suspend the President's executive order because it is illegal. We expect the Supreme Court to suspend the President's order because it is illegal, because the Constitution clearly says that as chief executive you have an obligation to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
You cannot make a law all by yourself with the stroke of a pen. And that is exactly what President Obama has done. In addition, it has placed an incredibly unaffordable financial burden on the people of Texas, the people of Tennessee, and the people of all the States of the Union that would have to deal with these folks that are here illegally.
All that we ask is that the law be enforced. All that we ask is that the law be respected, because, as our Founding Fathers understood, the law is the foundation of all of our liberty. Without law enforcement, there can be no liberty. Because there is just simply anarchy. If you look at northern Mexico today, it is in a complete state of anarchy. Mexico is essentially a failed state because they have no law enforcement.
In the United States of America we cannot expect to preserve this great Republic handed down to us by our Founders without enforcing the law. The fundamental question that this lawsuit, Texas v. United States, is pursuing--and winning--is respect for the rule of law as the foundation for all our liberties.
So I strongly support Mr. King's amendment as an important tool in the ongoing effort to overturn the President's illegal executive amnesty. We expect the Supreme Court will stand behind the State of Texas and agree that the President's order must be suspended because it is illegal, because without law enforcement, without respect for the law, there can be no liberty. That is the issue here.
I strongly support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the objection of the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) to this amendment is that he does not believe current Federal law is good public policy. As a Member of Congress, he has the privilege of filing amendments and filing legislation to change current Federal legislation, but we cannot, as lawmakers, encourage law breaking.
All the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) says is that if a local or State government expects to receive Federal money, they should comply with Federal law. It is really that simple.
Mr. King's amendment simply says that, if you expect to receive funding from the Department of Justice, if you expect to receive funding under the SCAAP program--the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program--to compensate local jurisdictions for housing illegal aliens who have broken State law and are housed in a State or local jail at local taxpayer expense, if you want to be compensated for that and if you want to apply for grant funding from the Department of Justice, all Mr. King's amendment says is follow Federal law. If you want Federal money, follow Federal law.
The Federal law is very clear. The law Mr. King is referencing here is very simple. It simply says that a State or local government may not prohibit or in any way restrict a government entity or official from sending or receiving any information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual to the Immigration Services. That is all this law says.
It is a very important piece of law because, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) quite correctly points out, we expect all our local and State and Federal law enforcement officials to work together seamlessly.
Because we are a Nation of laws, we understand that all our liberty depends on the enforcement of the law, with equal protection and due process for everyone. All our liberties depend on local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers using their good hearts, their good sense, and their ability, as law enforcement officers, to recognize when and where they need to cooperate and communicate with the State law enforcement officials, with Federal law enforcement officials to protect the life and liberty of the people of the United States. That is what is really at stake here.
That is the objection that we have had to the President's unlawful actions. That is the concern and the objection we have in the State of Texas to the uncontrolled flow of people and drugs and guns and illegal material across the border. Our concern is not with the lawful free flow of people back and forth over the Rio Grande River. Our concern is with the illegal, criminal conduct.
We recognize in Texas the importance of free trade with Mexico and with Canada, but you cannot have free trade and a strong economy without safe streets, and you cannot have safe streets until the law is enforced. We in Texas, first and foremost, recognize that, in order to have that good relationship with Mexico, the law has got to be enforced.
We need workers from Mexico to come here lawfully. We need our laws to be respected so that we can ensure the economy stays strong, so that our liberty is protected. Our liberty can only be safe when the law is enforced.
All Mr. King's amendment says is, if you expect to receive Federal money, follow Federal law. It is not complicated. That is very, very simple. Under the law that has been on the books since 1996, a State or local unit of government cannot restrict in any way the ability of a government official to either send information to Immigration Services or receive information from Federal immigration regarding the citizenship or unlawful status of any individual.
If my colleague from California (Mr. Costa) objects to that law, it is his privilege, as a Member of Congress, to file an amendment or file legislation to amend it or change it. In the meantime, our responsibility as lawmakers and my responsibility as chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee is to ensure that the law is enforced.
If agencies of the Federal Government or State or local governments expect to receive Federal money, if they expect to have the privilege of spending our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars, they should expect to follow the law.
If you want Federal money, follow Federal law. It is that simple. That is all Mr. King's amendment does, and I urge Members to support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York is prepared to withdraw the amendment. We will work together to resolve this problem, so I do claim the time in opposition.
I think the gentleman from New York has raised a very valid concern. Certainly we do not want to see any exception to the attorney-client privilege. It can't be limited to just those circumstances where an attorney is actually present with the individual interviewing him at the facility. I think the gentleman has identified a legitimate problem that we need to address.
As I discussed with Mr. Jeffries earlier, we got the language very late, and I want to be certain that we are not creating any unanticipated problems. Mr. Jeffries wants to be sure to exclude the very reasonable exception in current law that if a court order, on a finding of a judge, sees that there is potential or reasonable cause for concern that there may be furtherance of a terrorist plot in the course of those communications between an attorney and a client, the Department of Justice would have the right under that court order to listen to that conversation.
We want to make sure that we protect that exception but make sure we take care of the one he has identified, so if I could, with my colleague from Philadelphia Mr. Jeffries' help, we appreciate, as we just discussed earlier, if he would withdraw this amendment. I will work with my colleague Ranking Member Fattah from Philadelphia to help address the concern you have got when we move to conference. I think it is a valid concern and one that we will work closely with you, sir, to resolve.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, before I begin--and I will be very brief--I want to make sure to thank the majority staff who have worked so hard on this bill. I want to thank our chief clerk, John Martens; Leslie Albright; Jeff Ashford; Taylor Kelly; Colin Samples; and Aschley Schiller for their tireless work drafting this bill, along with Bob Bonner and Matt Smith on the minority's staff and Corey Inglee and Megan Olmstead in my personal office. And a personal thank you to my good friend, the Congressman from Philadelphia, who has done such a great job. We have worked together arm in arm on this bill.
Starting at about 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon, we have worked through over 80 amendments. All the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley) would have had to do was to show up here. During the course of that debate, any Member could have offered an amendment, and that is one of the great things about this process.
I want to thank our majority leader and our Speaker, Mr. Boehner, for opening up the legislative process. Unlike in the past, any Member of this Congress could stand up and represent their 700,000 constituents. You could take a Big Chief notepad and a pencil and just write out an amendment and walk right down there and give it to the Clerk.
All the gentlewoman from California had to do was just write the amendment up and present it to the Clerk. Why, we would have even accepted it. But instead, she offers it up here today as a procedural trick to confuse and confound.
We produced a great bill. The ranking member and I have worked together arm in arm to produce a good bill that protects this Nation's investment in space exploration and scientific research but, above all, invests in the good people of the law enforcement community.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source