“I have a history of being the only vote that was a ‘no,'” says Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.). “I’ve developed some trust with my constituents on those lone votes.”
Within the second episode of Purpose‘s new video podcast Simply Asking Questions, Massie joined hosts Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe in mid-December to speak about his latest votes towards assist to Ukraine and Israel and the International Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Reform and Reauthorization Act, in addition to his try and drive an in-person congressional vote on a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 reduction invoice in March 2020, a transfer that prompted former President Donald Trump to label Massie “a third-rate grandstander.”
Purpose: In mild of the vote on the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act and the reauthorization of Part 702, which basically permits the federal government to surveil communications between Americans and overseas targets with no warrant, there’s a push to connect it to the Nationwide Protection Authorization Act (NDAA) with a short lived extension. What’s at stake for People?
Massie: We’re not making an attempt to eradicate the FISA 702 program. It was established to permit our intelligence companies to spy on foreigners with no warrant. To be able to qualify to be spied on with no warrant, it’s important to be exterior of the nation and it’s important to be not an American citizen. When you’re contained in the nation or in case you’re an American citizen exterior of the nation, you possibly can’t be spied on by this program. Sounds nice, proper? However we have 250,000 individuals on that listing that we’re amassing data on.
When you speak to a businessperson in France, as an example, your emails might get caught up on this knowledge assortment. What they have been doing goes into this big ball of knowledge and so they put in your title and search it with no warrant, with out cheap suspicion or possible trigger. They’re utilizing this to not examine suspects, however to create suspects.
For instance that you’re at a protest and so they develop some nexus. They are saying, “Well, we think these protesters were inspired by Russia. We’re just going to run all the protesters’ names through this database.” Now, despite the fact that the intel group does not concede that they want a warrant for this, they’ve admitted that they violated their very own protocols lots of of 1000’s of occasions after they looked for U.S. individuals’ knowledge on this haystack. They are saying, “Well, it was created legally, so we don’t need a warrant to go search it.”
There are two proposals to reauthorize this program. By the best way, the one probability you ever get to reform these packages is after they expire. So it is necessary that they do expire often, and this one expires in January. Within the Judiciary Committee, which [Rep.] Jim Jordan [R–Ohio] chairs, and on which I serve, we have marked up a invoice that will require them to get a warrant. It might create felony penalties for individuals within the govt department who abuse this system. As a result of there’s by no means any culpability or blowback for anyone that is abused this program.
After which the Intel Committee has created a invoice that’s lower than perfect. It does not have a warrant requirement. It does not have lots of the reporting necessities again to Congress that the Judiciary invoice has. In actual fact, it expands their capacity to gather data. As an illustration, in case you had free Wi-Fi at a café, that service supplier can be handled like Google or Verizon now and so they must create a direct pipeline to the intel companies for any of the communications that undergo that.
So you have received two proposals on the market, and we’re operating out of time.
Within the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations about inappropriate authorities surveillance a decade in the past, there have been some lonely dissenters, however most simply rubber-stamped these items. Now, it appears there’s extra resistance, presumably influenced by the best way FISA was used towards the Trump administration. Do you are feeling the political tides have shifted to the benefit of people that care about privateness?
The tides have not simply shifted; the celebrities have aligned. We have by no means had a boss of both the Intel Committee or the Judiciary Committee who made reforming this program one in all their priorities. So with Jim Jordan, we’re very fortunate to have him because the chairman of this committee. One among his signature agendas is to get this reform as a result of we’ve seen abuses which were used towards President Trump.
Loads of conservatives have woken as much as the truth that this program is getting used towards them. You might have liberals who’re upset about this system. Clearly, the FBI’s utilizing this towards Black Lives Matter as nicely.
So that you do have this coalition of the left and the precise. It was a coalition of a dozen individuals. It was me and [former Rep.] Justin Amash [L–Mich.], [Rep.] Zoe Lofgren [D–Calif.], and [former Rep.] Tulsi Gabbard [D–Hawaii] who have been involved about this. We used to come back collectively and we’d supply amendments to attempt to repair this within the funding payments. We might attempt to defund some of these items, which is a extremely blunt instrument. It is lots simpler to put in writing laws that impacts the legal guidelines than it’s to only defund one thing. And they’d pat us on the top and say, “Well, you know, we appreciate the sentiment, but this isn’t the time or place to do what you’re doing. And you shouldn’t be mucking around with the funding.” However now could be the time and place: This system is expiring. We have a boss who’s sympathetic to the trigger. This reported out of the Judiciary Committee 35–2. There have been solely two dissenters.
Throughout his latest go to to Washington, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sought extra U.S. funding to assist Ukraine’s conflict towards Russia’s invasion. There’s additionally a posh overseas coverage state of affairs within the Center East proper now between Israel and Hamas. You might have referred to as funding Ukraine and Zelenskyy “economically illiterate and morally deficient.” Why oppose this type of funding?
The financial illiteracy is in reference to a letter that the White Home despatched to the Home of Representatives. In two or three of the paragraphs of the letter, they espouse the virtues of spending cash with the military-industrial advanced and sending that to Ukraine as a job creation program. That it might reinvigorate our military-industrial advanced. You have to consider within the damaged window fallacy to assume this shall be an financial stimulus for the USA.
In the meantime, the ethical deficiency comes from among the senators who’ve stated that this conflict is a superb deal for America as a result of all we’ve to do is provide the weapons and Ukraine provides the troopers, and we’re grinding down the Russian military. We’re degrading their capability to do that elsewhere or to commit conflict towards us. The issue with that’s the variety of people who find themselves dying. Zelenskyy allegedly advised the senators that he is elevating the draft age to 40 and admitted that they’re operating out of troopers both by way of attrition on the battlefield or from individuals who’ve defected and left the nation.
You’d assume if this have been a conflict concerning the existence of Ukraine and defending a democracy and such a high quality authorities that individuals would enroll, would volunteer to combat for his or her nation. However the actuality is that lots of of 1000’s of them who had the means and the cash received in another country. Some are dying, making an attempt to flee over mountains and thru rivers to get in another country. And much too many have died on the battlefield. We will hold supplying them with weapons. We will hold depleting our treasure. However they will run out of fighting-age males fairly quickly.
Relating to people leaving Ukraine, do you are taking that as an indictment of Ukraine’s democratic system or a notion that the conflict is unwinnable?
I feel it is each. They lived in a rustic the place they know that bribery and corruption are a part of the tradition and the present authorities is not resistant to that. When you’re combating to your nation, that is one factor. However combating for the federal government that is in control of your nation is one other factor. I consider that is a part of it. Clearly, self-preservation goes to be a part of it as nicely.
When it is over, there’s going to need to be some negotiated peace settlement. No one, I feel, believes Crimea goes to return to Ukraine. So why spend all of the lives when the strains are going to be the place they have been when it began? Realism is a 3rd consider that.
You’ve got been on the lonely finish, definitely on the Republican aspect, of a number of votes pertaining to Israel, together with Home Decision 771, which is entitled, “Standing with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists.” Might you clarify your stance on Israel, the place you are coming from, and what you assume a few of these critics may be lacking about your place?
At present, we will take our nineteenth advantage sign vote right here in Congress. I suppose I received off on the fallacious foot early and have been voting constantly ever since. The title of that invoice is fantastic. I’ve no disagreement with the title of that invoice, however there are 4 or 5 pages that go after that title.
The primary objection I had was that there’s an open-ended pledge of navy assist for Israel. We by no means declare wars anymore. The administration simply sort of goes and does it. And Congress retains funding it, however they discover the imprimatur for his or her exercise proper there in these resolutions. The open-ended assure of assist for that conflict that is contained within the textual content of that invoice, however not the title, might have implied boots on the bottom. And which may be the one vote we get to soak up Congress on whether or not we will do this or not. So, primary, I do not assist that notion.
Quantity two, in that decision they talked about Iran. Within the very first decision, they’re already making an attempt to increase the conflict and incorporate as a lot of the Center East as they’ll. There’s some folks that simply cannot wait to assault Iran, and so they wish to use this because the nexus to get there. In order that was within the decision, a condemnation of Iran. I feel we must be making an attempt to constrain the battle, to not increase it within the first decision of assist that we handed.
A part of that decision wished stronger sanctions on Iran. I do not assist sanctions, by no means voted to sanction a sovereign nation within the 11 years that I have been in Congress. I feel it results in conflict. Sanctions really create crimes just for U.S. residents, as a result of we’re not going to place any person in jail in a foreign country who trades with Iran. What we’re proposing to do once we move a sanction is to make a federal legislation that will end result within the imprisonment of a U.S. citizen who trades with Iran. And it hurts the people who find themselves within the nation. I feel it really edges us nearer to conflict as an alternative of getting us out of conflict. Regardless that I assist Israel and I condemned Hamas, I did that alone. I put out an announcement. I assist Israel’s proper to defend itself and I condemn these assaults. However that wasn’t sufficient.
You’ve got taken warmth for what you’d describe as a “virtue signal” invoice that’s basically the Home reaffirming the state of Israel’s proper to exist and recognizing that denying Israel’s proper to exist is a type of antisemitism. The place are you coming from on these types of payments that are not instantly tied to any type of navy assist?
I acknowledge Israel’s proper to exist. I’ve to preface all of these items with that as a result of individuals would suggest from a vote that I do not. However after they handed that, I stated, “You’re basically saying that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” And folks argued with me about that.
What’s attention-grabbing is the subsequent week they handed virtually the identical decision and so they changed Israel’s proper to exist with Zionism. Perhaps I am simply giving them clues for the way to write their payments extra instantly as a result of the subsequent decision stated that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. There are lots of of 1000’s of Jewish individuals who disagree with that assertion. In actual fact, [Rep.] Jerrold Nadler [D–N.Y.], who’s essentially the most senior member of Congress who’s Jewish, went to the ground and gave a five-minute speech, which is an extended speech within the Home of Representatives, on why that is unfaithful to say that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
There are lots of people who’re antisemitic who’re additionally towards the state of Israel, however you possibly can’t equate the 2. I feel these 19 votes, after at present, are type of a part of the conflict effort for Israel to make it arduous for anyone in the USA to criticize what they’re doing.
Each two or three days right here in Congress, we’re taking these votes. Loads of what’s within the decision is simply apparent and does not should be acknowledged. It is sort of like Black Lives Matter. It’s a must to say “black lives matter.” They’re doing the equal with Israel. Now Israel issues. I agree that Israel issues, however we do not have to take all these votes. And a few of them are going into campuses and making an attempt to restrict free speech by withholding federal cash in case you permit issues which might be thought-about antisemitic.
I have been referred to as antisemitic for merely not supporting the cash that goes to Israel. [The American Israel Public Affairs Committee] spent $90,000 in my district operating adverts implying that I used to be antisemitic, then in a tweet stated that I used to be antisemitic for not voting for the $14.3 billion to go to Israel, despite the fact that I’ve not voted for overseas assist to go anyplace.
You might have a repute because the man who’s keen to take the unpopular vote. One of many prime examples of that’s again in the course of the depths of COVID-19, in March 2020, when everybody was pushing for a $2.2 trillion COVID reduction invoice, together with the president. It was you who stated, “If we’re going to have a $2 trillion vote here, let’s follow the Constitution and have everyone come back to D.C. and actually do it in person.”
President Trump’s response to that was, “Looks like a third-rate grandstander named Rep. Thomas Massie, a congressman from, unfortunately, a truly great state, Kentucky, wants to vote against the new Save Our Workers bill in Congress. He just wants publicity. He can’t stop it.” He goes on to say that “the Republicans should win the House, but they should kick out Thomas Massie.” What was that like having the Eye of Sauron on you for insisting on an in-person vote in March 2020?
I will have to put in writing a ebook sometime. These tweets occurred about 60 seconds after a cellphone name ended between me and President Trump, the place he principally burned my ear off, screaming at me for most likely three minutes and stated he was coming at me, he was going to take me down. That is a sobering proposition if you’ve received a main election eight weeks away and you have been making an attempt to maintain the president out of your race. The individual operating towards you says you do not assist the president sufficient. The president had a 95 % approval score among the many main voters who have been going to vote in my election. However I simply stood robust. I stated, pay attention, if truckers and nurses and grocery retailer staff are exhibiting up for work, then Congress ought to present up for work too. And that was, I feel, an unassailable message. In the end, I used to be simply making an attempt to get individuals on document.
The explanation I used to be making an attempt to get individuals on document is as a result of I knew this was one of many worst votes in historical past and no one was going to be accountable for it. Right here we’re three years later, and each dangerous factor that I stated would occur because of doing that has occurred. And even my colleagues right here in Congress, numerous them admit to me that they have been fallacious about that. They will not say it too loudly lest anyone hear it.
The reporters got here as much as me as I walked out of the chamber that day and stated, “Your own president just called you a third-rate grandstander. What do you have to say?” And I stated, “I was deeply insulted. I’m at least second-rate.”
How a lot COVID coverage regret is there amongst your colleagues in Congress?
Not sufficient. Not almost sufficient. The coverage is not simply the spending, the vaccine mandates, the shutting down of our economic system, the obligatory masking, the best way individuals have been handled like cattle. There must be way more regret. However frankly, that is a mirrored image of the voters as nicely. When you ballot this, most individuals have moved on. Even a yr in the past, most individuals had moved on and it wasn’t within the high 5 points that individuals care about in any congressional district.
Have a look at [Florida Gov.] Ron DeSantis. That was a part of his signature situation. He most famously opposed numerous this COVID nonsense after it grew to become apparent what we have been coping with. He rode that wave and he was polling higher than Trump. However I feel individuals have moved on and so they’ve received different points to consider now. So have my colleagues. I feel it is actually unlucky. I wanted that I had been in a position to get that recorded vote that day. We would have much more individuals who would not be again right here in Congress perpetrating dangerous concepts like FISA.
You have been elected in the course of the period of the Tea Celebration’s emphasis on reining in authorities spending: “We can’t have the money printer constantly printing forever. We have to be prudent because the bill always comes due.” Do you assume that message has any hopes of getting any type of revival within the coming years, particularly given the runaway inflation that we have seen? Is it a misplaced trigger?
Let me assign a 95 % likelihood to that final proposition. I am right here with a 5 % probability that we are able to reserve it. And within the 30 % probability that if all of it goes to hell in a handbasket, I can nonetheless be right here and have some credibility to place it again collectively.
I feel what’s beginning to curb the urge for food for spending and convey some realism into the dialogue is the one factor that was ever going to curb our urge for food for spending, and that’s our collectors are beginning to balk. The charges at which the federal government can borrow cash now aren’t what we would like them to be. Once we exit to do an public sale or a sale for treasuries or bonds, what we’re discovering is the urge for food is not there, even at 4.5 %. To get a assured 4.5 % return in your cash from the federal government backed by the U.S. navy? That is not sufficient to mortgage that cash to the federal government. They need 5 %. The non-public sector and the opposite nations, the sovereign funds, often have the urge for food for our debt—after they’re dropping their urge for food, that is an indication that issues are going south.
I put on this debt clock that I inbuilt Congress to remind individuals of it. One aspect impact of me sporting that is that I’ve seen the speed at which the debt is rising goes up. For the maths nerds, that is the second by-product. At present, the debt per second is a mean of $78,000. I do not assume individuals notice. It looks like we’re going over Niagara Falls proper now. The speed of those dangerous issues taking place is rising now.
This interview has been condensed and edited for fashion and readability.
This text initially appeared in print beneath the headline “Against The ‘Virtue Signal’ Vote”.
