Ted Yoho

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I appreciate the gentleman's participation and his leadership. Mr. Speaker, this is not a Republican or Democratic argument. That should not even weigh into this. It is not conservatives versus liberals. These are American ideologies that we all have to come together to preserve, and I can't think of one person more suited to talk about this than somebody I have a lot of admiration for who sits on the House Committee on Agriculture with me. He is from the State my wife is from, the State of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. YOHO. I thank the gentlewoman from Utah, and I appreciate the work she is doing. Keep it up. We only have a Nation to save. Mr. Speaker, the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. Ours is the shortest Constitution in existence and is the longest-serving--227 years since its ratification in 1789. Our Founders can have many things said of them, but one thing we can all agree on is, through divine guidance, they got this as near to perfection as a document can be. Our Constitution has created the freest, the largest middle class, the most successful country on the planet. For the first time in recorded history, it has allowed people to become self-determining, it has allowed for personal freedoms never before seen in human history. It grants us unalienable rights, those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It allows for personal property rights. These are the things that allow a Republic, as ours, to flourish and for ideas to be created and expanded upon because they allow for the possibility of that unlimited potential inside each and every human on the planet. It is our Constitution that allows for the way of life we have for which others will risk everything, including life, so as to have a chance at freedom. So it is a document worth protecting, preserving. It is a document that should be revered by all so we can pass it on to our future generations, as well as the prosperity and the good fortune that was inherited by us, this generation. The price that has been paid came from the blood, sweat, and tears of our Founders, from the people who came before us, and from every military person, including their spouses and families; and each and every Member of Congress takes an oath and a pledge to uphold our Constitution. Article I, section 1 reads: ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'' Article I, section 8 lists clearly that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, to provide for the common defense, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. It ends in section 8: ``To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.'' The President's responsibility, as delineated in Article II, section 3, reads that the President is to see that the Laws are faithfully executed. I want to repeat that. The President is to see that the Laws are faithfully executed. This is called the Take Care Clause. I have only spent 3 years here, but in that time we have watched this body work multiple times to rein in not just the executive branch, but the administrative agencies. We have sued the President and have won two times in the Supreme Court. We have had fights over the power of the purse. We have had Supreme Court fights whether it has been dealing with immigration laws and rules or not enforcing the laws on the books. We have fought the President just on enforcing the laws that are already on the books. We don't need any more laws. We just need to follow the ones we have. This is not just this administration--this is previous administrations--but I fear where we are going in this next election. If we don't get our House in order, if we don't bring back Article I powers to this House, at that point, when we overstep the boundaries of our Constitution by an executive branch or by administrative agencies, it is too late to try to reel them in. Now it is urgent to do that. To put it off any longer would be buying fire insurance for your house after your house catches on fire. It is too late. In addition, as I talked about, we have fought overstepping, out-of- control Federal agencies that are wreaking havoc on American businesses and are costing every American, according to the CBO estimates, approximately $14,500. If I look at the administration's rules and regulations that have come out since 1999 to 2008, there have been approximately 750 rules that have come out. From 2009 to 2015, there have been over 530 rules coming out just from the Obama administration. If I look at the final rules and regulations that were issued just under George Bush, the amount for his 8 years was 2,430. When I look at President Obama's rules and regulations--and we are only 4 months into his last year and term--to date, the Obama administration has had over 28,000 rules and regulations coming out, which are strangling and suffocating American businesses, paid for by the American taxpayers. I recently introduced H. Res. 693, which asks for a permanent select committee to investigate not just this executive branch, but all future ones so that we can have in place a vehicle to rein in an overstepping administration. Mr. Speaker, I yield to a colleague and a classmate of mine from the State of Texas, Mr. Randy Weber, who has cosponsored H. Res. 693. I appreciate the gentleman's work on this important topic.

Mr. YOHO. Today, in one of our committees, we were hearing about the Attorney General and how she stated that those who speak out against the administration's climate change policy possibly being a crime. Think about that. They are examining if you speak out against something that is unfavorable to an administration. It is going against freedom of speech, our First Amendment, the very things that we fought for and that everybody who has come before us has fought for. I think this would be something that would scare everybody, if we are that close to losing the very document. I hold in my hand--and you have seen me do this before--the Declaration of Independence, in total, and the U.S. Constitution, in total. I think we can all agree this is not an epic in volume. I can read this in a day. This is not an epic in volume, but yet it is an epic in ideology of what free men and women can do in a country that honors and reveres this document. It just so important that we come together. As I stated earlier, I think Mr. Obama has done us a favor in showing us how weak we have become as an institution and how weak our rule of law is. And for us to succeed and continue as a constitutional Republic, we must--we have to--bring those Article I powers back to this body. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. YOHO. Yes, it would be all of Florida.

Mr. YOHO. I appreciate you bringing that up, because you bring up how many times it has been overstepped as of recent, but other administrations have done it in the past. But it sets a precedent from this point forward. If we don't rein it in now, when do you rein it in? Do you wait for the next candidate to come in? And we have had talks about that. If we don't do it now, it be would like buying fire insurance after your house catches on fire. It doesn't work. So it is so important that we come together as a body. Again, the Constitution is not a product of Republicans or Democrats or conservatives or liberals. The Constitution is not a function of government. Government is a function of the Constitution. When government steps over the boundaries of the Constitution, it is us--we, the people--the Representatives that were sent up here to hold and rein in the branches that are out of balance. This is all about bringing the three branches of government into balance. Let me just wind up with this. Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank all the Members who have joined me this evening. Restoring Article I powers is so vital to the survival of our constitutional Republic. At this very moment, there are individuals seeking the highest office in the land who have stated, if Congress disagrees with them, they have no qualms about taking action on their own, circumventing Congress and disregarding the founding principles enshrined in our Constitution. That should give concern to everybody. The time has arrived for us to take action to restore this institution to the one the Founders envisioned. Granted, you can say what you want about our Founding Fathers, but they got this right-- again, as you and have I have talked about, with divine intervention-- and they put in place a way to amend it to make it better, not to get rid of it. It is time for us to stand up for this body, the people's House. I will leave you with this reminder. All it takes for evil or tyranny to prevail or for our constitutional Republic to fail is for those good men and women to do nothing. I, Mr. Speaker, and the people that have joined us tonight, our colleagues that participated, will not sit idly by when the very document that has allowed so many people to be free, to achieve beyond their beliefs to a level never before ever achieved in human history, is being marginalized by inaction. I know my good friend from Iowa feels the same. And if you have any last remarks, you have got about 1 minute, if you want to wrap it up.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Madam Speaker, it is a great day here in America. Four years ago I came to Congress with a desire to change the business-as-usual politics in Washington, D.C. That road has been tough, but change has been achieved. My efforts, along with the efforts of like-minded colleagues, changed the leadership of this House for the better. There has been a renewed work ethic and excitement to set forth an agenda for the American people that puts them first, not Big Government, not Big Business. There is truth in the saying: Do not grow weary in well doing. Madam Speaker, with positive incremental changes taking hold, the keystone to our success will be a change in leadership at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Our current administration has done everything it can to avoid working with Congress. Time and again, Republicans have sent legislation to the President's desk on behalf of the American people, only to have each one of them vetoed. With every veto, the President casts aside the will of the very people who elected us to serve, telling them, essentially: I know what is best for you. Or he rules with a pen and a phone. Every Member of Congress takes their work and the work of the American people seriously as Representatives and as a legislative body. If this administration, in their remaining time in office, doesn't want to work with Congress on anything, then the Republicans in the House and the Senate must take action to address the issues facing the American people. Due to the President's policy of stonewalling Congress, the legislation that we have passed has no chance of gaining his signature. Compromise, once accepted as a means to accomplish the greater good, now seems to be a thing of the past. The executive branch, whether held by Democrats or Republicans, has grown accustomed to exercising unilateral power to reinterpret existing law and twist it to fit its own ideology. Again, I want to repeat. The executive branch, whether held by Republicans or Democrats, has used that power and twisted it to fit its own ideology. Congress has no answer to the authoritative rulemaking process used by government agencies today. Madam Speaker, we need to reestablish a check on those agencies that are willingly disrupting business across America. I am not talking about rules that were crafted with an understanding of the industry and a truly thoughtful process which included all stakeholders. I am talking about the rules, like the Clean Power Plan, endorsed by radical environmental groups with no reasonable knowledge of what affordable energy means to people who live paycheck to paycheck and follow an ideology of their own. To blunt these rules, Congress must have a tool that truly is a check on the executive, one that forces the executive and legislative branch to work things out together. One tool that scholars repeatedly pay lip service to is the power of the purse. We talk about it all the time, but we don't see it in action. While historically being an important tool to enforce the will of Congress, nowadays, a fight over spending devolves into a blame game over shutting down the government. It is a black eye to our system of government; it is a black eye to the notion of stability; and it is an insult to the American people and furthers the dysfunction of this great institution. The balance of power in our government is out of alignment, and it is up to us in Congress to reclaim what used to be ours--the legislative veto. The legislative veto used to be a potent check on the executive branch for the better part of the 20th century. However, a broad ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 1983, INS v. Chadha, nullified the legislative veto in over 280 statutes. This was a sweeping decision, one that both handed more authority to the executive branch while limiting Congress' ability to stand up to Federal bureaucracies. In his dissent, Justice Byron White, who was nominated to the Court by President Kennedy, correctly identified the fallout from the decision, and I quote: ``Without the legislative veto, Congress is faced with a Hobson's choice: either to refrain from delegating the necessary authority, leaving itself with a hopeless task of writing laws with the requisite specificity to cover endless special circumstances across the entire policy landscape or, in the alternative, to abdicate its lawmaking function to the executive branch and independent agencies. To choose the former leaves major national problems unresolved; to opt for the latter risks unaccountable policymaking by those not elected to fill that role.'' As members of the legislative branch, we all must take this seriously. We may be in the middle an election year, but if we play party politics when it comes to the struggle between the executive and the legislative power, neither party wins, and the American people lose. What is at stake, and more important than party politics, is the survival of our very form of government, a constitutional Republic. This is the time to come together, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, to bring this power back.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague for such wise words of wisdom. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from the State of Colorado, Mr. Ken Buck.

Mr. YOHO. Words spoken so true, and I appreciate that. The Constitution and the sovereignty of this Nation is what is at stake here, along with the institution itself. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, Mr. Jody B. Hice from the State of Georgia.

Mr. YOHO. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague from Iowa for such great remarks and your passion and your leadership. It was great to see you in front of the Supreme Court today speaking passionately about this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from the great State of South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague from the great State of South Carolina for those--I mean, those are great numbers that really illustrate the significance and the large amount of numbers that we are dealing with. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from the State of Arizona, Dr. Paul Gosar.

Mr. YOHO. I would like to thank my colleague from Georgia for participating. Mr. Speaker, in closing, our institution of law is threatened more today than ever before. All evil or tyranny needs to succeed or for a constitutional republic to fail is for good men and women to be complacent and do nothing. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, if Congress does not assert its constitutional authority, we risk becoming obsolete in the eyes of an Executive that would prefer to legislate with a phone and a pen as a replacement for this body. Thank you to all my colleagues who join me this evening, and may God bless America. Every day, before Members of Congress meet to conduct official business, we gather to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America. We place our right hand over our hearts and promise to our colleagues, our constituents, and all Americans that we will uphold the rule of law. This very law is the very vehicle that has ensured liberty and justice for all even being a possibility: the rule of law. Unfortunately, this administration seems intent on operating outside the rule of law. It insists upon circumventing Congress by changing laws and legislating from the Oval Office, not from Capitol Hill. Time and again, the American people have had to bear witness to the blatant disrespect this administration has for our Constitution. In my heart, I believe this disrespect is on full display in the embattled fight Congress and the American people find themselves in today with the executive branch at the Supreme Court. This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the United States v. Texas case, including 25 other States. To some, this case is simply an argument over whether or not you are pro-illegal immigration. Let me repeat that. You are pro-illegal immigration or not. To others, this case is about keeping families together. To many, like myself, it is about protecting the dignity of our Constitution and the balance of powers within the three branches of government. The United States v. Texas is about the rule of law and defending the integrity of our great institution of government. We are a constitutional Republic. And yet, the President's mass deferred action on deportation of individuals residing within our country illegally would make it seem more like we are living in a dictatorship. The Constitution is clear on the issues of legislation. Article I, section 1 explicitly states: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.'' Let that sink in for a moment. ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.'' Article I, section 8, clause 4: ``to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.'' That is solely the responsibility of this body. Take notice of the absence of any reference to the executive office, executive branch, or judicial branch. Article II, section 3, however, states that the President ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' It is referred to as the Take Care Clause. That the laws be faithfully executed, not established, not rewritten, not selectively enforce portions of law, but to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That power is still delegated to Congress just as it was over two centuries ago. If the Supreme Court upholds the administrative executive action, I fear that our Republic--that is the United States--will die. We will see an end of a Nation that started by fending off tyranny. We will see the end of a Nation which has withstood a civil war, two world wars, and countless terrorist attacks. Terrorists hate the United States simply because of the manner through which we have prospered under the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. Again, the success of our Nation is because we are a land and a Nation of laws. I urge all of my colleagues in the House and the Senate to not falter in their defense of the founding principles upon which this great Nation was built. Interesting, today, at the Supreme Court, I was there to speak on these very topics. Many pro-illegal immigrants were present, and I found it very interesting they were shouting, demonstrating, exercising freedom of speech, freedom of speech and demonstrating in America, simply because we have a Constitution that protects that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Brat), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this evening's Special Order.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I would like to thank my colleague from my neighboring district, Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Speaker, this is a great moment in time and I appreciate the gentleman bringing this up. This is such an important issue that we all deal with and something that every American has a vested interest in. I thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order this evening. The topic of tonight's discussion is an important one and one that demands attention by all Americans. My district and I have never been a fan of the IRS. It is an agency that wreaks terror amongst the American people. And in a perfect world, we would eliminate it altogether, but that is not what we are here to talk about tonight. When you consider their actions over the past couple of years of targeting conservative groups and individuals seeking nonprofit status or political ideology that doesn't agree with an administration, my desire to see this agency dismantled increases tenfold. Although the focus tonight is the conduct of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and his failure to perform his duty to respond to lawfully issued congressional subpoenas, let us not forget that the IRS scandal began back in 2010. 2010--over 6 years ago--this started. And do you want to know why the frustration of the American people is so high, why they say, You guys don't ever change in Washington, you never hold anybody accountable? We see the law being blatantly broken every day. Yet we stand here neutered, afraid to do something. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we stand up and hold those people that are breaking the law accountable. I know Mr. DeSantis' goal is to do that, his committee's goal is to do that, and my goal is to help them accomplish that. Many have accused Commissioner Koskinen of obscuring multiple congressional investigations into the IRS targeting of conservative groups seeking nonprofit status. Some argue that in the process of stalling and misrepresenting the facts to Congress, he has committed culpable misdemeanors. If Commissioner Koskinen has deliberately misled the American people, Congress has the constitutional responsibility to hold him accountable to the American people. Who else can do that? Only this body has that power: the House of Representatives, the people's House. That is why our Founders instilled that power, that authority, that oversight with this body. The American people can't hold anybody accountable. It is us, the legislature. And I support his impeachment. I feel that his agency completely went off the rails. And by doing so, I am proud to support Jason Chaffetz' House Resolution 494 asking for the impeachment of John Koskinen for high crimes and misdemeanors. This is something that has only been used 19 times in our Nation's history: impeachment of a Federal official. Nineteen times in over 200 years. It is not something that is flagrantly used to throw people out of office because we don't agree with their political ideology. This is something that has been used very sparingly, and it is a tool that must be used when the time is right to use it. Mr. Speaker, I say the time is right. The American people want to see this done. The resolution was introduced in October of last year, and we have yet to see it come out of the Judiciary Committee and onto the House floor. What is the holdup, is my question and that of a lot of other people. We know the White House will not lift a finger. This White House and administration will not lift a finger to hold anyone accountable, but why hasn't our own House leadership done more to bring this resolution to the House floor? That is my question. It is the question when I go home: Why are you guys not holding people accountable? Because if we don't hold ourselves accountable and we blatantly break the law, why should not the American people do that? This is to send an example that we cannot break the law. Because if we don't follow the rule of law, why should the American people? The American people want answers and accountability in their government. As Members of the House, we have heard their cries and worked together to hold the Obama administration accountable. It is time we bring H. Res. 494 up for a straight up-or-down vote and do the work our constituents ask of us. Just this month I held four town hall and teletown hall meetings, and one of the topics I heard over and over again was about government accountability. We hear it a lot: government accountability and transparency. We talk about it and hear about it, but don't see it. Again, that leads to the frustration of the American people: Why aren't elected officials ever held accountable? We have government agencies targeting American citizens for nothing more than a political ideology, their beliefs, ignoring our demand for information and flagrantly ignoring the law. This needs to end. We cannot change our Nation for the better if we do not change how business is done in Washington. Nothing in Washington will ever change if we don't start holding officials accountable. We need to start here. We need to start now. And I urge my colleagues to support the impeachment of John Koskinen. This is something not taken lightly. Again, I want to reiterate it has been used 19 times in over 200 years. I urge my colleagues to support the impeachment of John Koskinen and to continue to hold strong against this and future administrations that disregard the law, the Constitution, and the people of this great Nation.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I would like to thank my colleague for those kind words. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a quick moment to add to the important work that Mr. King is doing and to thank my colleague for yielding me the time and for his continued leadership in the fight to ensure the dignity of the Supreme Court so that it is not undermined by the nomination and subsequent appointment of a Justice whose judicial ideologies run counter to the Founders' constitutional principles, as you have spoken so eloquently about. The United States of America, the great American experiment, is an experiment that has surpassed centuries of speculation and persisted through the Civil War, an experiment that survived two World Wars and continues to stand as a beacon of hope to nations across the globe, an experiment made possible because of the foresight of our Founding Fathers--and it had to have some divine intervention because men just aren't that smart, so there was wisdom--who recognized the necessity to establish a government ruled by a series of laws they felt were so essential to ensure equal opportunity--not equal outcome, but equal opportunity--in the pursuit of prosperity and happiness to all citizens. These documents--the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights--I have right here. I want people to look at this. This is the entire Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I think if you look at it, we will all agree it is not an epic in volume. Even my colleague across the aisle recognizes that. It is not an epic in volume, but yet it is an epic in the ideology of what America stands for. And it stands for opportunity. And if you put work behind that, it becomes the American Dream, your American Dream. The very fabric of this country is our core value, our founding principles, and the Constitution that preserves this. And that is the very document that gives people on the left the voice of dissension, as it does people on the right. And if we lose this-- these principles--we lose that very argument, the very thing that made America great. And I ask you: Are those ideologies Republican or Democrat, conservative, liberal, White, Black, or any other adjective you want to throw in there? And I would venture to say that you would all say no, they are American ideologies. That is why this discussion is so important. The United States is facing an unprecedented attack by activist justices in both the lower and upper courts. If leaders were to yield to the demands of President Obama or any other executive in the future, and nominate any individual who does not have a true, tried, and tested conservative record on constitutional issues, the ensuing Supreme Court opinions could be detrimental to constitutional law for years, if not decades, to come. And I would surmise that if we cross that bridge and go beyond the constitutional principles of this country, what America is, what it has been in the past, and what we hope it to be in the future may be lost in the history of time. While I fully understand the importance of having a full Bench and all nine Justices available to hear some of the most critical cases of our time, it should not be done at the expense of our Constitution. That is a document we all should revere. We all should stand up and protect it. After all, don't we all give an oath to uphold that sacred document? As American culture has ebbed and flowed--and it will continue to-- morphing into what it is today, it was these founding documents that fostered an environment where the voice of the few, not just the many, could be heard. And that is the beauty of our country: a constitutional Republic. So many people want to refer to it as a democracy. A democracy is majority rule. A democracy is mob rule. And as Ben Franklin was often quoted: Democracy is the same as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. As we know, in that story, the sheep always loses. So that is why it is so important, because a constitutional Republic protects the rights of the minority, of all people. American culture, as I said, has ebbed and flowed over the period of time and it is morphing and will continue to morph. They have allowed for the people to dictate change, not a man who likes to remind the American people that he believes he can rewrite our history and, through the use of his phone and a pen, direct executive agencies to act with disregard to the voice of the people. A pen and a phone are not a replacement for the legislative body. And it is the Senate's chore to pick that person. Take, for example, a vital case about to be argued before the Supreme Court next week: United States v. Texas. To some, this may seem like a simple anti-immigration or, in some cases, a pro-immigration case. But at its core, it is not about whether or not you are anti- or pro- immigration. It is about whether or not the Supreme Court will allow the executive branch to circumvent Congress and legislate from the Oval Office rather than through Capitol Hill, the way it was intended by our Founders. I believe the Constitution is clear on this issue, but I also believe any Justice who does not have a deep appreciation for the Constitution, as the late Justice Scalia did, would disagree with me. Therein lies the danger: any Justice who is willing to tip the scale in the balance of power in favor of a runaway Presidential office. And it is not just this administration. It could be any in the future. And that is why this is so important. This crosses party lines. It is a political ideology that I would argue threatens the very fabric of the foundation and the founding of our Nation. Congress cannot allow itself to cave and settle for a Justice that would be complacent in the destruction of the Constitution and ultimately the destruction of the great American experiment. I challenge the President to get serious with this nomination and put forth the name of a Justice that will uphold the constitutional principles and not legislate from the bench. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to hold steadfast and not allow themselves to be persuaded by public opinion, public pressure, and by those who will try to pressure them to vote for any nominee who will do the American legacy and the American people an injustice by undermining the Constitution from the highest court in this great Nation. This discussion is so important. The very fabric of this discussion and the very basis of this discussion is about the preservation of this institution. That is what this is about. If you look at a timeline of human history and you look at the American experiment, it is but a dot on that period of time, but it has created the greatest country in the world. The reason that has been allowed is because of the Constitution. Again, those ideologies aren't Republican; they are not Democrat. They are American ideologies so that we will all benefit. And we all have a hand to preserve those. We can have our differences, but this is one thing we shouldn't differ on, and this is for the posterity of all Americans: conservatives, liberals, White, Black, anybody else. This is something we stand strong on, and I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa, my colleague and mentor, Mr. King, for bringing this up. I thank you for continuing the fight and bringing this out to the American people. This is important.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, for bringing this bill up today. I rise in support of the Global Food Security Act, H.R. 1567. This bill reflects almost 2 years of work between the Agriculture Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, both of which I serve on. This legislation is an important step in getting back to regular order and properly authorizing a program--which has essentially been on autopilot for the last 7 years--before funds are appropriated. An important program such as this needs to be reexamined by Congress and duly authorized so that changes that need to be made can be made and to stop the terrible pattern of just appropriating money for programs because the reauthorization is too difficult to work out. The legislation demonstrates that this body is doing what we were sent up here to do: make the tough decisions and stop the cycle of throwing good money after bad. H.R. 1567 authorizes previously unauthorized money that is no higher than what has been appropriated in the last 2 fiscal years. Furthermore, through the hard work of both the Agriculture and Foreign Affairs Committees, we have been able to eliminate duplicative spending and waste, strengthen congressional oversight while instituting no new spending, and most importantly, begin weaning these nations off of U.S. foreign aid by including the private sector, promoting economic growth, and opening markets for U.S. trade and investment instead of just aid. I think it is time to change our paradigm of giving aid to foreign governments and move from aid to trade. That way, we wean off the structure we have done in the past. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1567 and show the rest of the world that Congress is doing what it was meant to: making the hard choices through negotiating and crafting legislation and programs that will not irresponsibly waste taxpayer money and will encourage the best results that will wean countries off of U.S. aid and onto U.S. trade.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, we owe so much to the brave men and women who police our Nation's streets. Every day they selflessly put on their uniforms to stand in harm's way to keep us safe. In my district, on March 9, an off-duty Jacksonville detective, who was taking his son to school, was shot while making an unexpected stop after witnessing a suspect driving erratically. He has been upgraded to a stable condition now, but it is a sobering reminder of how quickly evil can strike. On March 13, Maryland Police Officer Jacai Colson was the 23rd police officer killed in the line of duty this year. May he rest in peace. Mr. Speaker, these tragedies have gone from infrequent to occasional to nearly everyday occurrences across the country. To me and law- abiding American citizens, this is simply unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, there isn't much room between order and chaos. Members of our police force are the first, and sometimes only, line of defense that we have from the evils that lurk in the shadows. Our law enforcement officers deserve every ounce of support, respect, and gratitude that we can bestow upon them. Let us thank all of our first responders and our police officers. Let us pray for their safety, their families, and may God bless the brave men and women in blue.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 64, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 45, on S.J. Res. 22, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' personal explanation

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Stutzman, for putting this important Special Order together. Yesterday, President Obama moved unilaterally, via executive order, in a misguided attempt to curb gun violence in America. He stated he had to take unilateral action because the Congress refused to support his initiatives. That is true, somewhat, but not because this Nation wishes to curb gun violence that has fallen upon innocent victims of America--victims like Kathryn Stienle. This young lady was murdered in San Francisco by a person here illegally--a person that had been deported over four times and should have been deported once again, but instead was allowed to stay in this country illegally because of this President's policies and the policies promoted by sanctuary cities like San Francisco. Obviously, I cannot speak for her family, but I would venture to say her family would have had a very different holiday this year than the one they experienced had the justice system not failed them and the man who murdered her had been deported. She would be here today if the President and his administration had chosen to simply enforce the laws on the books. President Obama's executive order will not curb this kind of violence. Only the enforcement of the laws will. And, Mr. President, you know this. Please abide by article II, section 3 of our Constitution: The executive shall faithfully execute the laws of the land. Now, I agree with the President that we should appropriate more money to mental health, as has been talked about here tonight. The lack of resources for those seeking mental health in this country is abysmal. Thirty years ago, this Nation had over 500,000 hospital bed facilities for mental health care. Today, there are less than 50,000. This is inexcusable. I also agree with the President that we should increase the number of ATF inspectors to process background checks more quickly and more efficiently. We can work this out through the legislative process--the way it should be done--and not through, again, executive fiat. With all due respect, Mr. President, your phone and pen are not a substitute for the other two branches of government. Aside from sidestepping Congress again, your other initiatives encroach on Americans' personal liberties and freedoms. Take, for example, your plan to revoke gun ownership from folks whose oversight of their finances are turned over to someone else--specifically, those receiving disability through the Social Security Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs. For reasons beyond their control, sometimes additional help is needed in managing one's finances. Sometimes they do it voluntarily. This does not mean they are incapable of making sound, moral decisions, and certainly does not mean their Second Amendment rights can and should be infringed upon. As an aside, I want to highlight how this President's administration allowed for Syrian rebels to receive military grade weapons and they supplied Mexican drug cartels with weapons through the failed Fast and Furious program administered under Attorney General Eric Holder at the time. All of this has been done irresponsibly and without conducting background checks. This administration's gun policies have killed innocent people. Customs and Border Security Agent Brian Terry was a victim of this. Yet this President's solution to gun violence is to restrict law-abiding American citizens from one of our most basic rights of American freedom and liberty. It simply does not make sense. The Second Amendment of our Constitution is very clear and concise. Allow me to read it: ``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' This amendment was not added in the early years of our Nation's founding for hunting or sporting purposes, but for personal protection to fend off an overbearing, tyrannical government. It is very clear and has consistently been upheld by the Supreme Court. Mr. President, I understand and sympathize with your frustrations, but please uphold the Constitution and come to Congress. Let's work together on those areas where we agree upon to curb gun violence. And let's preserve the Second Amendment. Let's all respect and revere the Constitution for all Americans.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Trenton Tigers on winning Florida's 1A State football championship. This talented group of young men ended the season a perfect 14-0 and broke the State record for ``running clocks'' on all 10 regular-season opponents. This is a feat that has never been done before. Trenton soundly defeated Port St. Joe 56-21. This gives the Tigers their second championship in just 3 years. An impressive achievement like this cannot be accomplished without hard work and dedication: the hard work of a two-a-day practice schedule, the hard work of each individual team member playing as one for a common goal, and the hard work of a talented coaching staff to guide the team to victory. I also want to congratulate Coach Andrew Thomas and his staff for doing an exceptional job coaching these young men. Coach Thomas' leadership has not gone unnoticed. He has recently been named the Class 1A Coach of the Year by the Florida Dairy Farmers. Coach Thomas, thanks for carrying on your great winning tradition and continuing to make the town of Trenton, Florida, and Gilchrist County proud of our young athletes.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for doing this very important Special Order. I commend Mr. Rothfus and Mr. Kelly for doing this. I have got several things I would like to talk about. The first thing is that 190 countries are meeting in Paris to negotiate a new international agreement on climate change at the 21st session of the Conference of Parties. According to the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, President Obama intends to commit the U.S. to giving tens of billions of dollars per year to finance green energy initiatives in developing countries to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below levels by 2025. America, wake up. These tens of billions of dollars are coming out of your money. We have seniors that can't buy health insurance or pay their rent or insurance. We have seniors and other families that are suffering here in America. But yet, the President wants to commit tens of billions of our hardworking American taxpayers' money, and mine, too, to these other countries. The Obama administration has indicated that the President does not intend to submit the Paris agreement to the Senate for its advice and consent as an article II treaty. This is a clear violation of the constitutional laws and ideals of America, and it will not be tolerated. We will hold him accountable. The lack of progress becomes even more apparent when you start looking at the country level. China, for its part, offered to reach peak carbon dioxide emissions around 2030, while reducing emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product by 60 to 65 percent by that time from its 2005 levels. But the U.S. Government's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has already predicted China's emissions would peak on their own around 2030, even without climate change initiatives. So they don't have any skin in the game. A Bloomberg analysis found that China's 60 to 65 percent target is less ambitious than the level it would reach by continuing business as usual. All this came before the country admitted it was burning 17 percent more coal than previously estimated. That is more coal than the entire country of Germany. So, our government, our President, and this administration want to bind America to a United Nations treaty. And let's look at the facts. America has been blessed with an abundance of energy sources. We should utilize all those sources to the best of our ability--from coal, petroleum, natural gas, solar, wind, hydro electric, and even manmade nuclear energy. We should use those to the best of our and society's advantage. We should not cripple the American power companies that supply energy to the manufacturers of America that employ the American citizens at the whim of an administration's green agenda and is paid for on the backs of hardworking American citizens in the way of lost jobs that go overseas because of higher regulations and energy costs, decreased wages because of a decrease in competition in the job market, higher energy costs felt by all of our citizens, but more on the lower end, as has been mentioned here, on the economic income scale because a higher percentage of their money goes to pay their utility bills. Look at the facts. Geologists think the world may be frozen up again, 1895. Disappearing glaciers--disappearing glaciers--slowly with a persistence that means there is going to be complete annihilation. That is in 1902. Professor Schmidt warns us of an encroaching new ice age, 1912. Scientists say Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, 1923. The discoveries of changes in the Sun's heat and the southward advances of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age, 1923 again. Most geologists think the world is growing warmer and that it will continue to get warmer, 1929. The point of this is the consensus of scientists has been wrong over the course of the years. If you look at recent facts, that 2-degree Centigrade benchmark that the scientific community says we can't get warmer than 2 degrees or life on Earth is going to stop to exist as we know it, that is not a scientific number. That is an arbitrary number. I did the research on it. That number comes from an economist in 1970 that the environmental community has gravitated to. They have used that as a benchmark, and it is a fallacy. The Earth's temperature has increased approximately one-half of a degree Centigrade over the past 20 to 30 years. This comes from the NASA Web site. I encourage the American people that are watching this to go to the NASA Web site. Look at the facts. Also look at that half-a-degree Centigrade increase in our temperature in the world. It partly is attributed to the new way they are measuring things today. They are more accurate than they were 20 or 30 years ago. So that is a variation. The other thing is they predict and they estimate that over 50 percent of that half-a-degree Centigrade increase--over 50 percent of that--comes from solar activity, not manmade or anthropogenic causes. So what does that mean? That means do we just not really even look at the causes of these? No. Not at all. Let's look at the facts. Even in left-leaning publications--in fact, I brought one here. I don't want to call them left-leaning, but the article in The Economist has a 14-page ``Clear thinking needed'' on climate change. Even in this article they had some fallacies. One of them was saying the warming in the world is 100 percent by human activity. That is a fallacy. That is false reporting. The other thing is they go in there and they say that, with all the wind power that we have put into the world, around the globe, and all the solar activity around the globe, and the massive government programs to supplement these, it has failed to make a dent in the so- called manmade CO2 output on a global scale, and it is not reliable. All those other forms of energy, the renewables, they are not reliable for baseline production, which is needed for national security. As I close, I just want to say this: As I said, America has been blessed with an abundance of energy sources. So let us, as leaders of this great Nation, make energy policies that are common sense in nature and don't entangle us, as a Nation, with other nations that cripple us as a Nation not just economically, but they weaken our national security, and they are going to be paid for by all Americans and, again, felt mostly by those that can't afford it. This treaty is a bad deal, and the President owes the respect to the American people to go through the people's House and the Senate to have any agreement binding. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, and I ask him to continue the good work.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. The EPA's own report says that their new emissions standards will not reduce the CO2 emissions or improve air quality or human health, but they are going ahead with it anyway to the detriment of American manufacturing jobs and costs to the American taxpayers. I stand in strong support of S.J. Res. 24.

Mr. YOHO. I thank my good friend from Kentucky for allowing me to speak. Mr. Speaker, we are as concerned about our environment and jobs and the economy as anybody else is, and there was a point in time when we needed this. We saw those pictures of China with the red glow and where you couldn't see the bicycle rider. China has got a problem, and they need to address that. We have addressed that in this country, but it gets to a point at which you cross a line and you can't squeeze any more out of the rock. Back 40 years ago the mercury coming out of the smokestacks of the coal-fired power plants was about 50 pounds of mercury a year. Now it is less than 2 pounds of mercury a year. So how much more can you increase that? Mr. Speaker, this administration has proven that it is no friend to the hardworking American families across our country or to the power- producing companies that supply power to all Americans. Instead, this administration is placing added requirements on our Nation's energy producers, requirements that will increase costs to all Americans, affecting those most who can least afford it. It will increase costs, it will decrease the grid's reliability, and it will jeopardize our national security. As we speak, nations across the world are meeting in Paris to discuss further restrictions on energy producers. As Americans, we do not bow to foreign pressure or influence. America needs to do what is best for America, especially when it is a foreign country that is putting out more than 50 percent of the carbon emitted into the atmosphere. Instead of limiting our energy production, which, again, hits hardworking Americans especially at the lower economic scales, why don't we use all of the resources that America has been blessed with and take a commonsense approach in making our economy stronger and more competitive rather than in crippling it? The issue is near and dear to my heart as a Member from Florida who represents five co-ops in my district, and it is what we see.