Ted Yoho

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague from North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my colleagues, Congressmen Hudson and LaMalfa, in offering this amendment. Under current law, States are not allowed to test SNAP recipients. This amendment would give States the authority to do the testing only if they want to, so it gives States States' rights. Law-abiding citizens who are most in need are those who the program is meant to serve. We're cutting waste to protect this program so we make sure that the SNAP dollars are going to those who truly need it, not to those who are able to spend funds on illegal purchases. With a $17 trillion national debt, we must give States all the tools they need in order to make sure SNAP funding goes to the people most in need. I thank my colleagues, Congressman Hudson and Congressman LaMalfa, for working with me on this and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I thank my good friend from Georgia for yielding, and I appreciate the comments. I'd like to title this talk, ``Burdensome Regulations: The Dysfunctional Government Tax.'' More than $14,000 every year, that's what the average American family loses out on because of Federal regulations either in taxes or lower wages because their employers are carrying that burden. How do we even get all these regulations, more than 6,000 regulations just this year? It happens when the executive branch goes around Congress to create their own policies. Some people call this ``legislation through regulation.'' I call it the ``dysfunctional government tax.'' It's the $40 a day every American has to pay because the executive branch won't go through Congress. It won't work with those of us who are here tonight because we were sent here by the people. In more places in my district, you could take your spouse out for a nice dinner for $40. A person could fill up their gas tank and a minivan for about $40, or you could take your children to a matinee movie on the weekends for $40. When I'm at home in my district, I hear from people who own their own business and from people who just care about their work, about how Federal regulations are making it harder to make ends meet. We're going to talk about a few of these regulations tonight, but let me tell you about a few stories from north central Florida. There's a lumber company in my district that has to aim lower. By that I mean versus aiming higher to expand their business. This is because of the burden of the Affordable Care Act. It's too great to bear. They would love nothing more than to hire more people, more workers, or buy that extra piece of equipment, but there's no telling what the compliance cost of the ACA will be. Not only that, these poor folks are subject to the rules and perhaps fines based on the discretion or interpretation of whatever inspector happens upon them that day. There is no certainty. And I think that's one of the biggest roles that we have to do is create certainty in the environment of the workplace so that businesses can go forward and expand their businesses. To create a stable economy, we need a stable environment for businesses to work in. The overregulation we've seen in recent years creates neither. Yet another example comes from a watermelon grower in my district and an interpretation of a rule from the Food Safety Modernization Act, commonly called FSMA. This rule says that the use of water bottles cannot be used by workers in the field when they are picking the melons. I don't know if words can describe just how hot and humid it gets in Florida during this time of year, but it gets pretty darn hot. Not allowing water in the fields is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment. Even more ridiculous are the posters that have to be placed on site that talk about the risk of heat stroke. What you see here is a poster that's put up by one of the regulatory agencies warning people about heat stroke, but yet they won't let you take water into the field to pick watermelons. These are some of the regulations that don't make any sense, and it causes confusion in the workplace. Another example that comes from Florida has to do with the poultry recycling program. This act was amended in 1997 to include new definitions; poultry products that have been below 26 degrees Fahrenheit may not be labeled as ``fresh.'' Such labeled product is considered ``misbranded.'' A company I know had a USDA inspection and identified poultry labeled as ``fresh,'' and they said the product was frozen below 26 degrees Fahrenheit. Due to the rule, the product was detained. Keep in mind that, as a veterinarian, this poses no safety risk to the average consumer, to any consumer. After 4 months of engaging the agency with time and money spent on litigation, the USDA changed the rule to allow poultry frozen below 26 Fahrenheit to be labeled as fresh as long as they sold the product to end users like hospitals and restaurants. Precisely. This is the business that this company was selling their product to all along. The bottom line is that it wound up costing them 4 months of lost revenue, and the rule cost this business $681,000. And they had absolutely no way to recoup their losses. These things have to change because they wind up stifling the entrepreneur. What we have is a regulatory agency that starts out to make the public safer, whether on the job or on the highways or the foods we eat. And it's a good thing. But what happens is they often overstep their authority, and often it is the interpretation of that rule by the inspector that gets the misinterpretation. And the end result is the owner gets fined and sometimes has to shut down until the situation gets resolved. Yes, we want safer workplaces, safer highways, and cleaner air and water; but we shouldn't impede the very people trying to create jobs. Our government agencies should be a facilitator to our businesses, not a debilitator to these businesses. After all, with the lack of the extra regulations up to this point in our history, I think it has worked pretty good, and we shouldn't overstep that boundary, and we need to have commonsense regulations.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I'd like to address the floor on why we need immigration reform. Washington has failed to lead on this issue for the last 30 years, and it has weakened American security and stressed our economy. America deserves better. It's our duty and it's our responsibility to address this issue for the health, for the strength, and for the security of our Nation. As the immigration debates come forward, our goals should not focus on what is best for this group or what is best for that group, or cater to this industry or cater to that industry. If we do that, we lose sight and we miss the mark on what really the focus should be on, and that is, what's best for America. If we focus on what is best for America and do what is best for America, then America wins. And if America wins, we all win, regardless of where you come from. The real issue is to preserve the opportunity that if we nurture it and put forth that effort, it will grow into the American Dream. Isn't the American Dream what this is all about? The American Dream defines who we are as Americans. It is the very essence of what it means to be an American. It says that no matter where you come from or what your background is, if you're willing to work within the confines of the law and do that four-letter word called ``work,'' you can achieve the American Dream. The very issue that we're struggling with is the preservation of the American Dream and the opportunity in this country. If we lose that, we lose what America stands for. And that's what sets America apart from all other countries, it's the ability to achieve the American Dream. As we move forward, let's keep in mind that if we do what's right for America, we will remain that shining city on the hill that Ronald Reagan talked so eloquently about, that beacon of hope of what free men and women can accomplish in a society that protects our God-given rights with a Constitution that protects that. If we do that, we can guarantee that America will stay strong. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Madam Speaker, I stand today to show my support for H.R. 45, the repeal of the largest legislative piece of malpractice ever passed through the Halls of Congress. This one bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, has done more to disrupt our economy and bring uncertainty to the marketplace than anything I have witnessed. My colleagues on the other side talk about jobs and no job creation on this side. We are working to create jobs here by repealing this bill. This is the number one job-killing bill in America, and it has rocked the engine that drives our economy--the business owner and the entrepreneur that create the jobs. Without jobs being created, the hardworking Americans will lose their jobs and they are going to lose their health care. Instead of health care reform, Congress created a health care tax. It is a tax that will be paid by all Americans young, old, rich, or poor. Today, in response to the people who have had enough, the White House declared this: ``It's the law.'' My response on behalf of the people I represent is this: Not for long.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I would like to thank my colleague from Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of H.R. 45, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. It's not just the House Republicans who want this or House freshmen who want to repeal this law; it's the American people. The American people don't like this. The people of my district overwhelmingly desire the repeal of this legislative debacle. Let's face it: in March of 2009, with a Democratic Congress, this bill was passed through in the twilight hours. The Speaker said--and I think we all remember those infamous words--that we have to pass it to see what's in it, that we have to pass it to see how it's going to work. America deserves better. Americans deserve better, and they demand better. The Affordable Care Act is the number one job-killing bill in America. When the President speaks of job creation and of stimulating the economy, the 800-pound gorilla in the room that nobody talks about is the Affordable Care Act. It's the number one job-killing bill--bar none. Here are a couple of examples: I had a person call in today. A young lady, one of my constituents, said that even though she doesn't have insurance, it's because she doesn't have a job; and the reason she doesn't have a job is due to this bill. It's getting in the way of job creation. Another business owner I know, he's got 350 employees. I asked him how the effects of this bill were going to affect his business. He said, Let me tell you about this bill. I could expand my business right now and I could add 100 new employees, but I'm not doing anything because of the estimated cost of this bill. Think about that. That's one man's business in one town in America. How many businesses in America, throughout this country, are not expanding because of this bill and the uncertainty? It's got to stop. There's a county in our district, Clay County. I was talking to one of the municipal people there that was in charge of the health care. He said that the estimated costs coming up because of the Affordable Care Act were going to cost $15 million. Then they figured out if they didn't comply with the Affordable Care Act what that cost would be. It would be $5 million. What choice do you think they're going to make? They're either going to lay off people or they're not going to cover people. They'll pay the fine. In my own town in Alachua County, there's a contractor, and he's got 51 employees. He's bidding on a job against another contractor that has 49 employees. The estimated cost to him is $2,000 per employee. So this contractor with the 51 employees is starting at the same line with this guy who has 49 employees, and he's going to owe $102,000 more in his opening bid. I asked him what he was going to do. He said, The most commonsense thing to do is lay off some people so I don't have to pay for that. Again, I hear this story over and over and over again. Mr. Speaker, it seems the President himself doesn't really like his plan that much either. In spite of all the glowing speeches he gives, the President himself has signed into law repeals of certain ObamaCare provisions on seven different occasions. When the President claimed that his plan would lower the cost of health care for Americans, he left out the fact that about 7 million Americans would just lose their health care altogether. Estimated insurance costs for the younger generation: they can expect their insurance premiums to increase from what they are today 150 percent to 175 percent. When the President claimed that under his plan no family making less than $250,000 a year would see taxes increase, he completely left out the fact that there are 21 new taxes in this bill; and these are taxes that are on not just the wealthy, but all Americans at all income levels. It's a bad bill, and this is not what America wants. The whole point of the Affordable Care Act was to create health reform, which implies not just health care, but health prevention. After 3\1/2\ years of this bill being out there, the Supreme Court said in reviewing it that it's not health care; it's a health tax. The bottom line is it's going to create people who have less insurance. Then we have to think about who will collect these taxes: the IRS. That's the very same IRS we found out that's under a criminal investigation today. Americans don't want this. Americans are a caring, generous, and a charitable people. We will always make sure that the least fortunate among us are cared for. The President's plan doesn't care for the less fortunate. In fact, it makes us all less fortunate. Our vote this week is not about politics; it's about being responsive to the people and adhering to the Constitution. We represent the people who are being hurt the most by the ObamaCare bill, and we owe it to them to relieve them of this burden. If we truly want to create jobs, the full repeal of ObamaCare is the first step in jump-starting our economy, and I'm proud and thankful to be able to be a part of the process of repealing this legislative disaster and replacing it with a commonsense health care reform.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have heard many gun control supporters say that the Second Amendment is outdated. They point out the phrase ``a well- regulated militia'' as their proof that armed and alert citizens belong in the 18th century and not the 21st century. We saw last week in Boston that they couldn't be more wrong. When the Constitution and the Second Amendment were written, the story of the Boston struggles during the Revolutionary War was still fresh in America's memory. British troops looked at every American as a threat and treated them like virtual prisoners in the communities that they built. That's why our Founders made sure that it would be law, and a birthright for every law-abiding American, that everyone would have the freedom to protect themselves. These days, many of America's enemies don't wear the uniforms of a nation. They try to avoid confrontation with our military and our police force; and they lurk in our streets, they hide out in our universities, and they wait for our defenses to go down. They don't save their hatred for our heroes in uniforms. They unleash it on anyone who is free. The line between crime and terror is a thin one. Any victim of a violent crime has experienced terrorism in its most intimate and intense form. When we talk about guns and we look at the true meaning of the Second Amendment, it's clear that the passage of a couple of centuries hasn't changed its intent much. The Second Amendment is a uniquely American value, as relevant today as when it was written. No other nation before ours has trusted the people to arm and protect themselves. When tragedies happened in Tucson, in Aurora, and in Newtown, guns were to blame. When the tragedy happened in Boston last week, we rightly blamed the person and not the instrument. Allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their freedom of self- defense can help keep us safe, and I will fight to protect this precious constitutional right.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share something that has been at my heart and will, in the coming days, be at the heart of my first bill introduced in the House. When Members of Congress break the law, they break trust: they break trust with their colleagues, hurting our ability to work together; they break trust with the American people who sent them here; and they break trust with the Constitution they swore to uphold. I will be introducing the Trust Act. This bill is simple. It does not distinguish between types of offenses or the possible reasons behind them. It makes clear that a Member of Congress convicted of any felony will forfeit the taxpayer-funded portion of their pension. If our servicemen and -women who lay their life on the line for our Nation lose their pension with a dishonorable discharge, should not Members of Congress be held to the same standard? These days with public opinion of Congress at record lows and public debt at record highs, the Trust Act is a place to start in restoring the faith of the American people to their government. I am pleased to present this opportunity to my colleagues to restore trust to taxpayers, and I ask them to join me in this effort.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a wonderful and unique community in my district, the Advent Christian Village at Dowling Park, Florida, which is now in its 100th year. Scripture advises us that, to whom much has been given, much is returned. Thomas Dowling of Suwannee County, Florida, had this in mind a century ago when he set out to turn his thriving lumber business into a vision for the community. Mr. Dowling set aside some of his property that he was developing around Live Oak for the Advent Christian Church to use for ministry. Before long, a family of five orphaned siblings had come to live at Dowling Park. The Setzer children became the first residents of Advent Christian Church's Home and Orphanage, which also opened its doors to the elderly. Today, Advent Christian Village is a leading-edge retirement community of more than 800 dynamic, welcoming members of America's Greatest Generation. While children no longer live at Advent Christian Village, they are an integral part of the ministry carried out by today's residents who, a century later, still take Thomas Dowling's vision to heart. The story of the Advent Christian Village is one of Americans coming together, expressing generosity and kindness to one another and helping those in need. Dowling Park is one of the brightest spots in Suwannee County and the Third District, and I congratulate them on 100 years of ministry.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to show my support in favor of the workforce initiative bill presented by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). This bill is not restrictive to any group, be it gender or race, but is for all Americans. This bill will allow people to find gainful employment in the marketplace. This is what America is in dire need of right now, and that is jobs. By helping people acquire the skills needed to find employment, we also give them the ability to help themselves in their ability to change their lifestyle as they pursue their American Dream. The SKILLS Act will help the economy in several ways: One, by creating a more qualified workforce to fill the needs of today's industries. Thus, it will bring more certainty to the marketplace. Therefore, employers, knowing that there is a more readily available trained workforce, will be more likely to expand their business. Another way is it will create higher paying jobs. A third way is it reduces the number of administrative agencies that oversee and run these programs by more than half, thereby causing government to be more streamlined, operate more efficiently, and save the taxpayers money. The end result, we help people get back to work sooner; and by doing so, we make a stronger America. So many of our policies of the past, although well-intentioned, have held people back and kept them out of the workforce by not promoting the learning or the advanced job skills needed in today's work environment. I believe we all would prefer to see people independent and self-sufficient versus dependent upon government. America is known as a generous country, and let's work to keep her that way; but America is also known as the land of opportunity for those that choose to seize that opportunity. This SKILLS Act will help ensure people acquire the skills, and if they desire to take advantage of the opportunity, to succeed in America. Again, everyone wins and America is stronger. For these reasons, we should move forward with this legislation; and I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to vote in favor of the rule.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his time. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank you for allowing me to rise here today. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this body tonight about a subject that weighs heavy on the minds of many of my constituents and many Americans. It is a subject and a right that has been granted to us by our country's founding principles, the Constitution, not by government. It is the birthright of any law-abiding citizen of the United States of America, and it is their choice to exercise that right. It is the role and duty of government to protect those rights. In my 2 months as their Representative, more people in the Third Congressional District of Florida have reached out to me with their concerns over how Congress will address our Second Amendment after the much-publicized, tragic event at Newtown, Connecticut. This, indeed, I think we all agree was a senseless act of violence. This is not a time to make a knee-jerk reaction and challenge our Second Amendment and restrict our rights as law-abiding citizens. This is not a time to play partisan politics. This is a time to come together. This is a time to go after the cause of this despicable act, the individual and the cause of gun violence. I stand 100 percent with President Obama and all others that want to curb gun violence so long as it does not interfere with our Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states: 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 is necessary to protect the Third Amendment: No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Those who commit the unspeakable crime we've witnessed a few months ago should not be able to hide behind any amendment or law in this country. But the real issue is gun violence, not the gun. We must be vigilant in using the laws already available to the fullest extent possible and look at why people are doing these crimes. Before we punish or infringe upon the rights of the law-abiding individual, we should look more at causes of mental health issues that lead to these crimes. This point is illustrated by the Department of Justice's own internal memo that we're discussing tonight, which notes that the greatest number of guns used in crime comes from straw purchases, those being purchased by someone for someone else or by theft of a gun, not by the person that abides by the law. Laws that place even more restrictions on law-abiding citizens who only want the right to own a gun for any legal activity they determine will not deter the person intent on doing harm. People with bad habits tend to do bad things. The first week of this Congress, I joined many of my colleagues here on the House floor in the reading of our Constitution. We took an oath at that swearing-in ceremony to uphold the Constitution. I carry a copy of our Constitution with me everywhere I go. Any and all we do in this body, and our colleagues in the Senate, should be done to uphold, to protect, and to strengthen this document; and by doing this, we strengthen America. Our Constitution has set America apart from every other country in the world, and I aim to keep it that way.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents in Florida's Third District to voice the concerns they have shared with me over the President's sequester that will go into effect on Friday. Make no mistake: cuts need to be made. However, I know, and my constituents know, the sequester is not the answer. We in the House have shown, and will continue to show, where responsible spending cuts can be made. In fact, the House has tried multiple times to address this issue and has passed legislation as recently as 6 weeks ago. However, the majority leader, Mr. Reid, would not address these issues. With a Federal Government of this size and magnitude, Washington bureaucracy can afford to bear the brunt of these cuts. Not our military, not communities like Lake City, or Mayo, or Newberry, or Middleburg, Florida. I'm working with my friend from Georgia, Congressman Doug Collins, on the new Freshman Regulatory Reform Working Group, to help show exactly where some of these cuts are and to help businesses do what they do best. They grow the economy and they create jobs, bringing in more revenues to our government. We need to, and we will, show the President and the American people that we can cut wasteful spending without hurting kids, our seniors, and that we can make responsible cuts that do not put our national security at risk, and not add to the heavy tax burden of hardworking Americans that they're already carrying. It is a shame that the President and the Senate have avoided working with the House in a real budgeting process. I look forward to working with all my colleagues on restoring faith to the American people and bringing order back to this process.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, two years ago this month the people of Bahrain began a movement to seek constitutional reforms where power was shared with the people. They took to the streets impassioned by a desire to make sure that government serves the people, not the other way around. They yearned for the fundamental human right of freedom and aspired to have reforms that would grant them constitutional rights and self- governance. Earlier this week, I met with three human rights defenders from Bahrain and they told me about some of the terrible atrocities that have occurred in their country as a response to the protests. They spoke of repression, harassment, and imprisonment. I fear that these responses not only threaten stability in the region but send a signal of oppressed liberty throughout the world. I was struck by the bravery of these young people and applaud their quest for liberty. Our Constitution is critically important to us. The Bahraini people do not have that all important safeguard to their freedoms and they understandably want it. As Americans, we should welcome the Bahraini people's self-desire to have constitutional reforms and not take action to hinder it. While I respect our history with Bahrain and our mutual foreign policy interests in the region, their government's actions over the last two years trouble me. It is my hope that the government of Bahrain takes the steps that they have promised their citizens and move towards the constitutional reforms that are so desperately desired by the people.

Mr. YOHO

Mr. YOHO. ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. ``No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.''