Ted Yoho

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to express my, my family's, and our country's thoughts, sympathies, and prayers with the people of France in their loss and in their pain. I am here to stand in solidarity with the French people, France, and all the people and families from around the world who lost loved ones in this tragic and cowardly act. This is not just an attack on France and innocent people, but people in the West and all societies that love peace, liberty, freedom, and value human life, people who believe that their rights come from a Creator and that we are free to determine the life we choose to live in a civil society, not forced to choose a life from the Dark Ages at the barrel of a gun or live in the threat of terrorism. I applaud French President Hollande in his rapid response and wholeheartedly agree and support his words that this will be a merciless response. May the terrorists and ISIL's presence on Earth be short. Long live France.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 33 sailors of the El Faro cargo ship which disappeared Thursday, October 1, during Hurricane Joaquin. The El Faro, an American-flagged ship, had just left Jacksonville, Florida, for San Juan, Puerto Rico. The 790-foot ship is believed to have sunk after its engines failed in the face of 130 mile-an-hour winds. This week, rescuers found two large debris fields, and officials called this the worst American maritime disaster in over 30 years as, tragically, the entire crew is presumed lost. Thirteen of these brave souls were from our State in Florida. But regardless of where they came from, our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the crew on the El Faro, and with the brave men and women serving in our Coast Guard attempting the rescue.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleagues, Representatives Sinema and Dr. Benishek, for their leadership in arranging such a Special Order on such an important topic and for the invitation to speak this afternoon on suicide prevention awareness. September is Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. It is so important that we have an open and honest dialogue about the issue of suicide. The more we talk about it, we increase people's awareness, and they are there to help the people in need. There are alternatives, and they do not have to suffer in silence. From comedian Robin Williams, to bullied young kids, to the brave men and women from our Nation's military returning from the battlefield, suicide does not discriminate. Emotional pain and despair can set in and take root in the minds and bodies of all ages across all demographics. Often, the signs of suicide go undetected, which leave those left behind asking: Why did this happen, and what could I have done to prevent this tragedy? Today a disproportionate amount of our Nation's veterans are falling victim to suicide. After all they have given to this country, it is tragic and unacceptable that our Nation's veterans often suffer in silence until it is too late for those around them to help. By shining a light on veteran suicide and all suicides, we as a nation can start to understand the urgency with which we need to solve and prevent this epidemic that our veterans, their families, and their friends struggle with. Not recognizing the signs early enough all too often leads to a loss of life. This is an important thing that we as a nation need to come together and have a strong support system in place so that those in need will reach out and not be stigmatized. Again, I want to thank our colleagues.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this deal. This is a terrible deal for America, for the Middle East, and for the world. This is a deal that can't be verified. The IAEA, as so eloquently talked about by my colleague across the aisle, is the same IAEA that had their inspector buying nuclear material for North Korea. This is a deal that will embolden Iran. It will make them stronger. They are the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world, shouting, ``Death to America.'' When they stop having the rhetoric from their Ayatollah and from their President saying ``death to America'' and they start denouncing terrorism and release our hostages, then we can go forward with this. But this will do nothing but embolden Iran, make them stronger, and make the Middle East more unstable.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Iowa, Kansas, and Texas for coming down here to share your thoughts on this important item. Mr. Huelskamp, you brought up about diluting the institution of marriage, and if we keep going down this path, it will be worth nothing. If we keep diluting the value of our money, it is worth nothing; and if we keep diluting the value of the things that have made our society great, the nucleus family, if we keep doing that, it becomes more washed out. Roughly 2 weeks ago the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision on Obergefell v. Hodges demonstrated yet again the highest court in the land legislating from the bench. The ruling was disappointing not only for the fact that the court had not four States to redefine marriage, but even more so because it removes millions of American from the democratic process of choosing for themselves who and what defines marriage. I personally and millions--you brought up 51 million--hold a traditional view of marriage between one man and one woman. And I am proud to say that I have been married to my wife Carolyn for over 40 years. God bless her because we know that is a tough job. However, the Constitution grants people, the voters, the ability to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage. Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent made a valid point, which I am sure is shared by many Americans. He said those who founded our country would not recognize the majority's conception of the judicial role. And then he continued: They certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policies, judgments, so long as they do so after a quiet extensive discussion. With this type of legislation from the bench, what is the point of the States' rights. I think that is what this gets down to because 30 States wanted to define and have the right, according to the 10th Amendment, that it is a State's rights issue. If you live in that State and they decide what marriage is and you don't like it, you have the freedom to move or challenge us through the State system. I think it is a sad day in America when we have to, as a country, redefine who we are as a Nation, we have to redefine what marriage is, an institution that has been around and ordained by God for over thousands of years, 2,000-years plus, to come down to this point in our society. We have got a book that we have lived by, and I am going to hold this up for the viewers. This is, in total, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And you can see it is a very thin book. It is not epic in volume, but, yet, it is an epic in ideology of what a nation stands for, a nation of laws. We have the three branches of government. I have been up here for 2\1/2\ years, and what I hear over and over again is we are in a constitutional crisis. And being in Congress for the last 2\1/2\ years, I see a lot of dysfunctionality. And if we don't do our job, you get other branches of government fulfilling that job and overstepping their boundaries. I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia when he stated in his dissent: A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nonelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy. Wow. Those are powerful words. A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy. We cannot allow our Constitution to be eroded, and I will continue to fight for the States' rights and stop this continued Federal power grab. I look at Justice Roberts, some of the dissension in his ruling, and Roberts forcibly criticized the majority: Sidestepping the democratic process and declaring that same-sex couples have the right to marry when, in his view, such a right has no basis in the Constitution. The court's decision, he complained, orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human societies for millennia. We are redefining that. And then he goes on to the Kalahari bushmen and to the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians, and the Aztecs. Just who, Roberts laments, do we think we are? The other three justices echoed Roberts' sentiment, sometimes in even more strident terms. Justice Scalia characterized the decision as a judicial putsch and suggested that, before he signed on to an opinion like the majority, I would hide my head in a bag. This is from our Supreme Court justices. I think it is a sad state of affairs that, in the three branches of government, that we are out of balance. We, as Member of Congress, are the most powerful branch. It is the way our Founders set our country up. It is the longest living democracy and constitutional free republic in the world. The reason for that is the checks and balances. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to say to you and to my colleagues that our three branches of government are seriously out of balance. And at times during human history, when the government oversteps its boundaries, whether in total or in the different branches, and they overstep the boundaries of the Constitution, it is not only our duty, but it is our responsibility as Americans and as the people's House in the United States of Congress to stand up and rein in government and hold those other branches accountable. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House floor to make sure that we are the ones that stand up and say: Enough is enough. We have had enough. Mr. KING of IOWA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the fine gentleman from Florida for his presentation, his understanding of this, and his conviction on constitutional issue after constitutional issue, including reminding us this is a constitutional republic that we live in. I would like to now recognize the husband of Roxanne Babin, the gentleman from Texas whom I get to count as a good friend here in this Congress, who has stood up on principle time and again. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we have 8 minutes left in our time. So we will try to judge it accordingly. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I want to thank the chairmen--Mr. Conaway, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Bishop--for their leadership on this issue. I stand here today in support of creating more jobs and improving the health of our Nation's forests through sustainable forest management. H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, is a bipartisan bill that will address the growing economic and environmental threats to the catastrophic wildfires. This piece of legislation is hugely important for my district and the entire southeastern region of the United States. Florida is home to a multitude of national forests, including the Apalachicola, Osceola, and Ocala, which span more than 1.2 million acres in north central Florida. These forests supply over 10,000 acres per year for timber production, creating jobs, lumber products, pellet mills for green energy, and paper products. This land also allows for recreational activities like equestrian and motorcycle trails and hunting and fishing. In addition, they produce roughly 600 billion gallons of fresh water, and that is all in my home State. Due to a lack of proper forest management, the risk of catastrophic wildfires has increased dramatically. These emergencies draw critical funding away from the Bureau of Land Management accounts intended to prevent wildfires, thus creating a chronic problem that is only getting worse. This bills ends that inefficiency by allowing FEMA to transfer funds to the Forest Service when these disasters occur, ensuring activities like prescribed burns and other management techniques are adequately funded. This bill improves management practices, helps prevent wildfires, and should be supported by every Member in this Chamber. Again, I commend Chairmen Conaway, Thompson, and Bishop.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my very dear colleague from Florida for bringing this very important topic to light. This is something the American people need to weigh in on; and this is something, as you heard the passion tonight, the people talking about how this is not a good deal. This is not a good deal for anybody but Iran. I would like to do a chronological anthology of Iran's nuclear weapons program. If you go back 30 years ago, they were working on gaining the technology and the material to develop nuclear weapons. John Bolton, in his book ``Surrender is Not an Option,'' talked about the cat-and-mouse game that Iran had played over the last 30 years of saying, No, we are not developing nuclear weapons; and they wouldn't allow the inspectors in. The U.N. had resolutions and sanctions, and eventually, the IAEA inspectors--the International Atomic Energy Agency--was allowed to come in. They caught Iran redhanded, developing nuclear weapons. They apologized. They said: I am sorry. You are right. We were bad. We are not going to do it again. Then it started over again and then over again and over again. For 30 years, we have been playing the cat-and-mouse game. It hasn't gone away. Their mission is to get nuclear weapons. When I look at George Bush, when he put sanctions in the 2000s on Iran to say enough is enough, the sanctions were in place, and they started. To President Obama's credit, he tightened them up, and it put more pressure on Iran, and then it brought them to the negotiation table. When you negotiate on a deal--any deal--there should be mutual benefits to both sides. At the end of this, you will see there is no benefit to America, to the Middle East, and to world peace because, when those negotiations started, as my colleague from New York (Mr. Zeldin) brought up, there was no negotiation to release our four American hostages. If you think that the sanctions were bad enough to put Iran in this great economic tragedy or pressure that was just crippling Iran and they couldn't do anything and they came to the table to release the sanctions so that they could move on, but during that time period--this is what the American people need to know--during that time period, Iran was extending their arm and their reach into the Western Hemisphere through Bolivia, through Venezuela; and they were funding their terrorist arm, Hezbollah, that caused two terrorist attacks in Argentina in the nineties that was responsible for over 100 deaths and over 300 injured people--Iran was doing this at the time when the sanctions were on them, and they were supposed to be under this great economic stress--but they were doing that because they were funneling money through Venezuela and getting money for fuel plus armaments that they were selling. During this time, when we think our sanctions are working, Iran is working against us. I have been here in the House for 2\1/2\ years, and I sit on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. During those 2\1/2\ years, we have had experts come in, over and over again, telling us about the threat of Iran creating new clear weapons. Over and over again, they said that Iran would have enough nuclear- enriched material to have enough material within 6 months to a year to have five to six atomic bombs. That was over 2 years ago, so one could only reasonably expect that Iran has enough material for five to six nuclear bombs. This was backed up by Henry Kissinger and George Shultz in The Wall Street Journal editorial about 3 months ago, that they claim that Iran was about 2\1/2\ months to 3 months from having nuclear material. Then we moved down to the negotiation. The negotiation was started-- if people will go back and research the news--from the administration, from John Kerry. He said negotiations have started and that the whole purpose was Iran cannot and will not be permitted to have a nuclear weapon. Now, we are just going to delay them for 10 years. As my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins) brought up, the snapback, if they break any part of this deal, there is going to be snapback. I mean, you have got to be from another planet to think that that is going to happen because we are going to rely on China and Russia to say: Yes, we are with you. Russia has already sold $800 million worth of antimissile defense systems. In addition, during this period, when Iran had all these tough sanctions blocking their economy, Iran has been developing an ICBM program. An ICBM program stands for an intercontinental ballistic missile system. That is not for their neighbors. That is for Europe. That is for the United States. It is for people way outside of Iran. They have done this with the economic sanctions. In addition, there is evidence that they have detonated a trigger device for a nuclear weapon. They have gone through expensive remediation, covering up the site, covering up the soil, paving it, and not allowing our inspectors to go in there and inspect that--the IAEA inspectors that we are supposed to depend on to prove that what they are doing is for peaceful purposes. Then I look at what Iran has done over the years, when we have been in the Middle East, with our brave young men and women in the Middle East, fighting for security for this country and for the neighbors in the Middle East. Seventy percent of the wounds to our soldiers have come from IEDs. Ninety percent of those IEDs were created by Iran. Then, as we talked about in this nuclear negotiation, Iran has got to be limited to the amount of centrifuges for their peaceful nuclear program. Now, get this, for a peaceful nuclear program, you need tens of thousands of centrifuges to produce nuclear material to run nuclear reactors; yet, in this deal, we are only limiting them to 5,000 centrifuges. You only need a few thousand centrifuges to create nuclear weapons. It just doesn't match up. As we talked about, in a negotiation, there should be a mutual benefit. I see no benefit for America. Again, talking to the experts in Foreign Affairs, I asked them this question: With our negotiation with Iran, where we have given into everything and we have got nothing--keep in mind, we are supposedly the lone superpower of the world--when you go into a negotiation like this and you are operating from a level of weakness and not strength, how does that affect us around the world community? The experts told me that it has weakened America's standing in the world. It has weakened our negotiation power in the world. It has weakened and threatened our security in the Western Hemisphere. I agree with Mr. Collins. I hope the President is listening, but I am sure he is not; I hope Mr. Kerry is listening, but I am sure he is not, but I hope this message gets to them--that, if they are going to negotiate for America, they should negotiate from a point of strength, a point for what is right, not just for our country, but for the Middle East and for the rest of the world because, if America is not strong and if we do not stand strong, there is not a secure world. I thank my colleague from Florida for bringing this up because this is a debate the American people need to hear. I hope they put pressure on the people in charge of this and bring this negotiation--as they have said over and over again, a bad deal they will not stand for--this is a bad deal, and this is something they need to walk away from. We, in the House of Representatives, need to block this in any way that we can. I will not, I shall not, and I cannot support this because what I see is we are trying to prevent that which we can't, instead of preparing for that which will be.

Mr. YOHO

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

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

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, ozone comes from many different sources. Yes, it is true that it comes from hydrocarbons. When the UV light hits it, it does do that. It also comes from the oceans. It comes from the swamps. It comes from just nature itself. Ozone by itself is not always bad because it is used industrially. It disinfects laundry. It disinfects water in place of chlorine. It deodorizes the air. It kills bacteria on food and contact surfaces. It sanitizes swimming pools. The list goes on and on and on. Yes, there have been reports of it causing respiratory problems, but that is also associated with spores and molds and things like that. I think ozone, at this time--especially when you look at the rulings from 1997 and 2008, those standards--I don't think we should move forward at this time, with our Nation in the economic recovery, to put new standards on all of the Nation when yet a large portion of the Nation is still not under compliance. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate that ozone is incriminated a lot of times when I think we ought to look at particulate matter in dusty environments or in urban areas where airflow in apartment buildings may not be like it should be. Ozone is used as an alternative to chlorine for bleaching wood, paper products, and things like that. Many hospitals around the world use large ozone generators to decontaminate operating rooms between surgeries. It is used in industry all the time. I just ask people to support this amendment, so we don't have more overreaching regulations from the EPA. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Calvert, along with the ranking member, for the work he and the committee have done. My amendment prevents the EPA from using any funds in the bill to change ozone regulations, regardless of whether or not all counties meet the 2008 standards. As of 2012 and based on the 2008 ozone standards as designated by the EPA, 24 mainland States were in attainment, including my home State of Florida. An additional four States had either partial attainment or whole counties had marginal attainment. What I find most interesting is the areas of our Nation that have consistently been designated as nonattainment by the EPA. This includes most of California, parts of Texas, and the mid-Atlantic States. These counties have had nearly 20 years to change their policies and abide by the ozone standards. Under the newly proposed standards, a fair amount of the country would be designated as nonattainment areas. Why should the remainder of the country be subject to new standards when parts of the country have yet to meet the 2008 or even 2009 standards? Making this change will have serious economic implications on the States and counties that have already proactively worked to reduce their emissions, all at a time when the Nation is still recovering from one of the worst economic recessions of our lifetime. Furthermore, I would like to remind my colleagues of the recent Supreme Court decision, Michigan, et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency. At the heart of the case was whether or not the EPA took care to include the potential cost to power plants when proposing new regulations, and that estimated cost is $9.6 billion and a burden on the American taxpayers. The Supreme Court held that the EPA interpreted U.S. Code 7412 ``unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision.'' I would like to say that this is the exception and not the rule when it comes to the EPA, but that simply is not the truth. The EPA has made its de facto policy to implement unreasonable regulations with no regard to the larger impact it will have on the economy and taxpayers and the environment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a recorded vote on my amendment be withdrawn to the end that the amendment stand disposed of by the voice vote thereon.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, in lieu of what the chairman is saying, I will withdraw the amendment at this time if we can have a serious discussion about the debt before September. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. This amendment is about priorities. I think with the state of the economy that we are on both sides, I don't have to remind people that we have the debt ceiling coming up, and we are short of money; we have the highway trust fund that is going to come up again at the end of July, and we are short of money. I believe that the Federal Government has enough agents and more than enough debt for sure. I just encourage people to vote in favor of this amendment. We get people from our district, and they talk to us about what happened out in Nevada with the Cliven Bundy case. When you have the Bureau of Land Management with SWAT capabilities showing up like they do, we get asked: Why are agencies like this having that kind of tactical gear? Why do they have that kind of capacity? This is not to weaken them in a sense, and we do have to patrol those areas. I just think, at this point in time, that $25 million would serve our debt. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOHO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, after speaking with Chairman Calvert and Chairman Rogers with help on future amendments, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

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

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Calvert and the ranking members for the fine work they have done on H.R. 2822. I think, overall, it is a great bill. What my amendment does is move over $25 million from the Bureau of Land Management's law enforcement activities and transfer that money into the deficit savings account. Just a brief cap, BLM, Bureau of Land Management, has a force of roughly 200 uniformed officers and 70 criminal investigators on staff enforcing a wide range of laws. In addition, the FBI has 35,000 agents; the Department of Homeland Security has over 70,000 enforcement agents; the IRS has over 3,700 criminal investigation employees, including 2,600 special agents; the ATF has over 2,500 special agents; and the DEA has over 5,000. With just those five agencies, there are over 115,000 national law agents in just these five agencies. I feel that we have enough Federal agencies to deal with the problem to enforce the laws on the books, especially when we are talking about the violations on Federal lands. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 374 I intended to vote ``no.''

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague from Texas. I appreciate his loyalty and his patriotism to our country. I look forward to working with him in the future to talk about future negotiations to make sure that the Federal Government, every time we act, every time we move, every time we vote is to do what is best for America, to make America stronger, more competitive, and a better nation to pass on to our next generation.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chair, I rise in full support of H.R. 2289--The Commodity End-User Relief Act--and thank Chairman Conaway for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chair, H.R. 2289 brings needed regulatory relief to farmers, ranchers, and individuals across rural America. In my district, agriculture is the single largest sector of the economy and in the state is second only to tourism. Many folks in rural parts of my state are exposed to the unique risks associated with volatile agricultural markets. Because of this farmers and ranchers need financial tools that allow them to mitigate these risks. This bill will bring that certainty. Additionally, municipal utility services and co-operative energy suppliers meet nearly all of my district's electricity needs. These groups rely heavily on risk mitigation provided by this bill. If the federal government overly regulates the use of risk mitigation, industries and constituents within my district will see hikes in their monthly energy bills. H.R. 2289 will allow American business to run as intended without new burdensome regulations and red-tape from bureaucratic government agencies. Most importantly this bill allows the American economy to do what it does best producing the world's food and fiber while supplying affordable energy. I congratulate Chairman Conaway on a well crafted bill and a thorough committee process and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the underlying bill.

Mr. YOHO

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

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment at the desk.