John Yarmuth

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Charles J. ``Chuck'' Kavanaugh as he retires after 20 years as Executive Vice President of the Building Industry Association of Greater Louisville, formerly the Home Builders Association of Louisville. For two decades, Chuck has helped construct and remodel houses throughout Louisville--places where families can build their own foundation for a successful future. He has also worked with businesses large and small to help grow and expand their factories, office buildings, and workspaces, creating jobs and significantly impacting our local economy. Under his leadership, the Building Industry Association of Louisville has become second-largest of the nearly 700 homebuilders groups affiliated with the National Association of Home Builders. And his hard work and success have not gone unnoticed by the NAHB, who have previously named him ``Executive Officer of the Year'' and President of the Association's Executive Officers Council, a position he attained after being elected by his peers. Throughout his career at the Building Industry Association of Greater Louisville--and previously as Vice President of the former Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce--Chuck has spent his life helping others. He is also a Founder of the Building Industries' Charitable Foundation, where he has dedicated his time and effort to their important partnership with YouthBuild and Kosair Charities. I want to thank Chuck for his dedication to our community, his service to homeowners and business owners throughout our city, and-- above all--his advice and friendship during all these years. On behalf of the people of Kentucky's Third Congressional District and the City of Louisville, I extend my best wishes to Chuck as he begins his much- deserved retirement.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of world-renowned surgeon and Louisville resident, Dr. Joseph E. Kutz, as he retires after 52 years of practice. For more than a half a century, Dr. Kutz has worked to help heal the lives and limbs of countless patients. Joining forces with a fellow accomplished surgeon, the late Dr. Harold E. Kleinert, in 1964, Dr. Kutz helped found what is now KentuckyOne Health's Kleinert Kutz Hand Care Center. Through the leadership of Dr. Kutz and his colleagues, Louisville has become the preeminent center for hand transplantation in the world and a city at the forefront of new medical technologies and progress. His commitment to our city runs deep, as Dr. Kutz has served as Clinical Professor of Surgery at the University of Louisville's School of Medicine, past director of the Christine M. Kleinert Fellowship in Hand Surgery, past president of both the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery and the Greater Louisville Medical Society, and past treasurer for the International Society of Reconstructive Microsurgery. But in addition to his own practice, he has also worked throughout his career to help prepare more of his fellow surgeons for hand and microsurgery. His work with the Christine M. Kleinert Institute has helped train scores of surgeons and made the Kleinert Institute--and the city of Louisville--the place where many of the biggest and most important breakthroughs in hand surgery have occurred. Dr. Kutz has spent his life helping others, in and out of the operating room, and he will leave behind a field of medicine that is better off because of his hard work and vision. I thank Dr. Kutz for his devotion to this important medical field, for his passion in transforming the lives of his patients, and for his dedication to our community. On behalf of the people of Kentucky's Third Congressional District and the City of Louisville, I extend my best wishes to Dr. Kutz as he begins his much-deserved retirement.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will make it easier for the American people to figure out who is trying to influence their vote through campaign ads. Right now, when someone is placing a political commercial on the air, the TV station is required to upload to the FCC public site information that identifies the name of the ad's sponsor, the duration of the ad, and the cost of the ad. But the FCC's site is cumbersome, slow, and impossible to search, which defeats the purpose of this requirement. This amendment clarifies that nothing in the underlying bill will prevent the FCC from requiring those entities that must submit a public inspection file to do so in a machine-readable format, which would guarantee that it is easily sortable, searchable, and downloadable. Adopting the Lujan amendment will send a message to the FCC that there is strong congressional support for making this information more accessible so that the American people have at least a chance to figure out who is trying to influence our elections. Furthermore, this amendment would fix a real-world problem, unlike the underlying bill, which is a vague solution in search of a nonexistent problem. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, as I said on Wednesday during debate on the rule, the bill before us today is a vague solution in search of a nonexistent problem. While we all share concerns about the idea of broadband Internet rate regulation, Chairman Wheeler has made it absolutely clear that the FCC will not seek to regulate those rates. But since this bill is before the House anyway, I thought I would offer an amendment that would address an actual problem that can be fixed by the FCC. Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934 requires broadcasters to disclose the true identity of political advertising sponsors. The FCC currently relies on an outdated 1979 staff interpretation of the law that does not account for the dramatic changes that have taken place in our campaign system over the last 6 years, including the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions. The rule makes sense. The American people ought to know who is actually trying to influence their votes. Unfortunately, sponsors in today's world don't indicate who is actually paying for the ad. No. We get sponsors like Americans for Kittens and Puppies. That is not very helpful in disclosing to the American people who is trying to influence them. It would be, for instance, if somebody ran an ad promoting sugared soft drinks and, instead of Coca-Cola or Pepsi being the actual people paying for the ad, you would have the advertising agency: This ad is sponsored by Ogilvy & Mather or McCann Erickson. That is not very helpful to the American people. So this has resulted in a major loophole in which special interests and wealthy donors can anonymously spend limitless amounts of money to influence the outcomes of our elections. That is not what Congress intended. Despite having the authority to do so, the FCC has refused to take action to close this loophole. My amendment, by restating the original constitutional intent, would have sent a message to the FCC that it is time to act. We all know how much secret money has flooded our politics, weakened accountability in government, and made it harder for voters to develop a true opinion of the individuals they will send to Congress to represent them. My amendment would have helped to change that and, hopefully, would have begun to restore a minimum level of honesty in our electoral system. The amendment was germane within the rules of this body, and the solution it provided was well within the authority of the FCC. Most importantly, an overwhelming majority of Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--want us to do this. They want us to reform and fix our broken campaign finance system. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Rules Committee voted against the interests of a majority of Americans and blocked my amendment from coming to the floor. While they killed my amendment, I am glad the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Lujan, will be up for consideration today. It will give us a chance to debate the lack of disclosure and transparency in campaign ads. Unlike the underlying bill, it offers a specific solution to a real problem.

Mr. YARMUTH. I am in its current form.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. Ladies and gentlemen, today, April 15, is the deadline for Congress to enact a budget resolution; but here we are, set to leave town without taking any action. To their credit, Republicans did write a budget and it was approved by their members of the Budget Committee. So why, after months of promises of a return to regular order, would Speaker Ryan refuse to allow a floor vote on the Republican budget, the budget of his own party, the party he leads? Our obligation here in Congress is to control the purse strings of the country. So why would a former Budget Committee chair not want a vote on his party's budget, unless he didn't want people to know what is inside of it. I don't blame him. Our Democratic budget invests in education, infrastructure, medical research, job training, job creation, American priorities that improve our communities today and increase revenue in the future. It is why they are called investments. In contrast, the Republicans took the European austerity approach: eviscerating each of those investments and taking health coverage away from 20 million Americans, ending Medicare as we know it, and jeopardizing the retirement of millions of Americans. It also makes us less competitive, and encourages companies to ship jobs overseas. Nobody knows the backlash from this rebuke of American values better than Speaker Ryan, because the budget he wrote 4 years ago, when he was running for Vice President, had to be disavowed by his Presidential candidate running mate, Mitt Romney. It was so abhorrent to the American people that even his own running mate couldn't support it. So I get it, Mr. Speaker. I like your budget even less than you do. But you have it, and the people deserve to know what is in it and where their Representatives stand on it. You know, earlier this week, Speaker Ryan gave a speech explaining why he wasn't going to be a candidate for President, and he said one of the reasons was we have too much work to do here in Congress. Well, he sure is right. So why are we here, and why were we here yesterday and the day before working on bills that have no consequence to the American people when we should be doing the most important business we can, and that is to decide how much money we are going to spend and where for the American people. This motion to recommit is simple. It says, upon the bill's passage, we will bring the Republican budget to the floor. So don't hide behind procedural roadblocks to block debate. If you believe in your budget, make the case before the cameras and the American people. Let them see the contrast in our parties' values so they can decide for themselves. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, in response to Chairman Walden--and I know that he shares my interest in creating effective disclosure of campaign contributions and ads--this amendment does not mandate any particular form of machine- readable information. It only says that the Commission is not prohibited from requiring that certain parts of information are readable in machine format. I want to read a few quotes on disclosure: ``Disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity.'' ``With modern technology, disclosure now offers a particularly effective means of arming the voting public with information.'' ``Today, given the Internet, disclosure offers much more robust protections against corruption.'' ``Because massive quantities of information can be accessed at the click of a mouse, disclosure is effective to a degree not possible at the time Buckley, or even McConnell, was decided.'' All of the quotes are from the majority opinion in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, written by Chief Justice Roberts. Now, I don't agree with the decision, but I sure do agree with his position that disclosure is critical to the integrity of our electoral system in the wake of this decision. I believe that adopting the commonsense Lujan amendment shows that Congress values transparency in government and will help restore a level of trust with the public. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I wish that the Rules Committee had made that amendment in order, but they didn't, so I will oppose the rule and urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I rise to oppose the rule on this legislation, not necessarily because this is a bad bill--I do think it is a vague solution in search of a nonexistent problem--but I oppose the rule for another reason, and that is because I thought that since we were going to bring this bill to the floor anyway, even though it is unnecessary, even though Chairman Wheeler of the FCC has said that the FCC does not intend to regulate rates on broadband, I thought maybe I would at least try to accomplish something productive and offer an amendment to solve a real problem that the American people are seeing in front of them every day right now. That is the problem of television ads, political ads, that do not truly identify their source. Under section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC requires broadcasters to put on the ad the true identity of the people running the ad. This makes a lot of sense. The idea is that when you see somebody trying to influence your vote or to influence your attitude about a particular public issue, that you should understand who is actually trying to influence you. But because of dramatic changes in the way campaign laws are implemented and because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, what has happened is that we now have ads run by organizations like Americans for Kittens and Puppies, and that doesn't do the American voter, the American consumer, any good. They don't understand who is actually paying. What my amendment would have done, had it been made in order by the Rules Committee, it would have basically restated the law that exists and say the FCC should regulate these ads by requiring the true identity. Right now they are relying on a 1979 staff interpretation of true identity. They are saying we need to put the sponsor of the ad on the ad, but the sponsor of the ad, again, is a nebulous, vague, title organization that nobody knows who they are. What we would like to do is say you have to put on the ad who is really paying for it. So instead, for instance, if you had an ad in support of sugared soft drinks and it was being paid for by Coca-Cola, under this interpretation you could put the ad agency that actually put the ad on the air and nobody would know that Coca-Cola was actually paying for it. The people, again, are seeing this every day on their television screens right now. These laws and interpretations have resulted in endless sums of anonymous money coming into the system trying to influence the outcomes of our elections. That is not what Congress intended. Despite having the authority to do it, the FCC has refused to take action to close this loophole. My amendment would have restated the original Congressional intent and would send a message to the FCC that it is time to act. This amendment would have been germane, it would have been within the rules of the body, and, most importantly, it would have been supported by the vast majority of Americans: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who want us to reform our campaign finance system so that it is on the up and up, so people understand who is trying to influence them and also to end the influence of big money in politics.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. That budget was so distasteful to the American people that his running mate in 2012, Mr. Romney, was forced to disavow it. We can make our own judgments, but we can't make our own judgments if we can't see and we don't let the American people see the administration discuss their priorities versus the Republican priorities. This really is an insult, once again, to the American people that Republicans are too scared of the contrast that will be presented to even allow the President's budget, the constitutionally elected President of the United States, to have his budget discussed in front of the American people. It is shameful. I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time. This is my eighth year in service on the House Budget Committee. For the last 7 years, every year, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget has come to the House Budget Committee and has presented the budget of the President of the United States--the President of the United States, who has been duly elected by the people of this country for two terms. Now the House Budget Committee decides that it wants to break 40 years of tradition and not allow the administration to present the President's budget to not just the committee, but also to the country. This isn't just unprecedented, this is disrespectful to the members of the committee and the Members of this House. It is certainly disrespectful to our President and the office of the Presidency. And above all, it is disrespectful to the American people who expect their elected leaders to at least review the budget of the President they elected. As I have said before, the American people have elected President Obama twice. They did it for a reason. One of the reasons was that we were facing one of the greatest financial crises in the history of this country. The record since President Obama has taken office is pretty good. During his time in office, he has overseen one of the most monumental recoveries in our Nation's history. Consider some of the things that have happened over the past two terms of the Obama administration. Over the last 6 years, 14 million new jobs have been created; unemployment is now down to 5 percent; our budget deficit is at the smallest it has been in 8 years, down $1 trillion from the year President Obama took office; corporate profits are up more than 165 percent; the Dow Jones average has doubled; the S&P 500 has more than doubled, up 140 percent; the NASDAQ has tripled, rising 222 percent; more than 16 million Americans now have health coverage who previously didn't; and new business formations are running at their highest rate in 17 years. With that record of economic leadership, you would think that not just the American people, but certainly the House Budget Committee members would want to hear what this President has to say about his vision for the economy going forward and for the budget of this government. But no, once again, for the first time in 40 years, we don't have time or, apparently, the interest to listen to what the President has to say. I shouldn't say ``we.'' This is the Republicans on the Budget Committee. Budgets are the way we prioritize our values and our preferences for future action. I know why the Republicans don't want to hear the President's budget, because they don't want the American people to compare what the President would like to do with what their own budget will do. Now, we don't know exactly what that Republican budget is going to look like this year, but we do know that the Republican budget is going to resemble the Paul Ryan budget of 2012 and 2011.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life and service of Georgia Davis Powers, former State senator and civil rights icon from my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky. Senator Powers, who passed away early Saturday morning, leaves behind a city and commonwealth that are fairer and offer more opportunity because of her lifelong dedication to the fight for justice. Generations of Kentuckians have benefited from the sacrifices she made on the front lines of protests and from the trails she blazed as both the first woman and first African American to be elected to the Kentucky Senate. As we strive to build on the difficult work of creating a more equal and just society, I know that her inspiration will continue to lift us and show us the way. Louisville has lost a great champion, but her legacy will live on, in our community and beyond, forever. I am honored to have called Senator Powers a friend and that she called Kentucky ``home.''

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this measure does absolutely nothing for the American people. Meanwhile, we have a terribly flawed campaign finance system, an unfair justice system, and a broken immigration system. There are so many things we could be doing, rather than passing another messaging bill just to make the opponents of ObamaCare feel good. This won't make the American people feel good. As a matter of fact, CBO said that by repealing the Affordable Care Act, we will not only add to the deficit, but we will have a demonstrably unhealthier population. We have to remember, this is not just about the 22 million who will lose their insurance. This is about the tens of millions of people, hundreds of millions of people who will lose the protections that are part of this act: the ability to put their children on their policies until they are 26 years old, an end to lifetime caps, and an end to annual caps. There are so many things that we would be damaging without an alternative if we pass this measure today. Finally, the only reason that the Republicans are putting this up is because they know it can't pass because, if it passes, it will wreak havoc on the United States of America and the American citizens, and it will do nothing to help them. There is no alternative, and the Republicans know it.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Louisville resident Jeffrey A. Been as he retires after 24 years of service at the Legal Aid Society in Louisville, Kentucky. Named Executive Director at the Legal Aid Society in 2005, Jeff's legacy at the helm of this important organization includes leading the fight to maintain funding for legal services for the poor during the Great Recession, building relationships with community partners to ensure that our city's most disadvantaged neighbors have access to the courts and other supportive services, and expanding programming for homeowners, domestic violence victims, and veterans. In his time at the organization, he also created innovative technology tools to help facilitate greater access to our justice system for all. Jeff served as Associate Director of the Legal Aid Society from 2000-2005 and as Project Director of the organization's HIV/AIDS Legal Project from 1992-2000. Prior to his work at Legal Aid in Louisville, Jeff served as a prosecutor, judicial law clerk, staff attorney for the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, and on the faculty at the Indiana School of Law. Jeff also founded the HIV/AIDS Legal Project of Indiana, one of the first programs in the nation to provide free legal services to people living with HIV disease. He is also the recipient of several awards for his professional service, including the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law Dean's Service Award, the Louisville Bar Association's Justice Martin E. Johnstone Special Recognition Award, and the Kentucky Bar Association's Donated Legal Service Award. On behalf of the people of Kentucky's Third Congressional District and the City of Louisville, I extend my best wishes to Jeff as he begins a much deserved retirement.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act of 1966, signed into law by Kentucky Governor Edward T. Breathitt on January 27, 1966. This pioneering legislation prohibited discrimination in employment and public accommodations based on race, color, national origin or religion, and I commend the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights for its steadfast work in enforcing it. Prior to passage of this measure, discrimination and segregation in employment and public accommodations was not only accepted as the norm in Kentucky, it was often required by state law. Countless Kentucky citizens from all walks of life bravely fought and patiently worked to achieve passage of the law, overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles and countless setbacks. Through their hard work, Kentucky became the first state south of the Mason-Dixon Line to enact civil rights legislation that not only prohibited discrimination in employment and public accommodations, but also included administrative and judicial enforcement powers. At the time of its passage, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed the Kentucky Civil Rights Act of 1966 to be ``. . . the strongest and most comprehensive civil rights bill passed by a southern state,'' and it rightly became a model for other states to enact legislation of their own. Since then, the Commission successfully expanded the law to prohibit discrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing, and credit transactions based on race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, familial status, disability and smoking status. And in the 50 years since the passage of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights has filed, investigated, and adjudicated more than eleven thousand complaints on discrimination on behalf of the citizens of Kentucky. Today, I want to commend the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights for their dedication to upholding this landmark legislation for the last 50 years, and thank them for their tireless efforts to defeat discrimination throughout the Commonwealth.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In recent weeks, we have learned about the water contamination problems in Flint, Michigan. By now, many of us have seen angry mothers and fathers on local television there, holding up water that looks like this, demanding a response from government officials. I think we all support the steps that the State and Federal Government are now taking to ensure that the water in Flint is safe for families to drink. But what if the legislation we are debating right now prevented government officials from taking that action? There would obviously be an outcry from Members on both sides of the aisle, and the bill would likely be defeated, as it should be. I am here on the floor today to say that this bill does, in fact, block government officials from protecting the water supply, not for the people of Flint, but for families in Appalachia and other coal mining communities. This water isn't from Flint, Michigan. It is from a well near a mountaintop removal site in eastern Kentucky. This orange water is what comes out of taps in much of Appalachia, where water is contaminated by toxic mine waste from the reckless practice of mountaintop removal mining. I have talked to teachers in eastern Kentucky who tell me that when the children in their classes draw their environment, they draw the water orange because that is what they see. How tragic is that? I have had the opportunity to fly over mountaintop removal sites and the areas around them, and the water looks a lot different than it should, a lot of colors that come out of Crayola boxes. Explosives used in the MTR process pollute the air, and the exposed rock and particulate matter allow heavy metals and toxins to leach into and poison the water. The situation is made even worse by coal companies who are allowed to dump mining waste directly into waterways. These actions, and the consequences of mountaintop removal, have created a public health crisis, with families living near or downstream of these mining sites experiencing higher rates of cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, birth defects, and infant mortality. More than 2,000 miles of Appalachian streams have been poisoned since mountaintop removal began about 40 years ago. The Obama administration is trying to respond to that crisis with the commonsense, scientifically sound stream buffer rule. This proposed rule would take some important, although modest, steps to limit mountaintop removal practices and protect the water supply in mining communities. This bill would stop those efforts. It allows coal companies to continue to destroy mountains, pollute water supplies, and endanger the health of families living in the surrounding communities. Whether in Flint, Michigan, or eastern Kentucky, all families deserve water that is clean and safe and a government that cares and responds when their health is in jeopardy. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous measure.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and congratulate Simmons College of Kentucky on officially becoming recognized as our nation's 107th Historically Black College and University. One hundred and fifty years ago, members of twelve Black Baptist Churches met in Louisville to discuss the need for a school that would allow Black students to pursue a college degree. After years of planning and consideration, they decided that this school should be located at the corner of 8th and Kentucky in Louisville, where they purchased four acres of land and continued working to make their dream a reality. Originally founded as the Kentucky Normal Theological Institute, it was under the leadership of Dr. W.J. Simmons that the school became a full university, growing in both size and opportunity, and would eventually be renamed in his honor. Today, Simmons College continues to make a positive impact in our city and throughout Kentucky. The faith that inspired this institution to persevere throughout the years is now stronger than ever, and the hundreds of students who are currently enrolled are continuing the school's proud tradition as the birthplace of Black higher education in Louisville. As the school's motto so accurately states, Simmons College has been ``dedicated to educational excellence since 1879,'' and I extend my most sincere congratulations to their President, Dr. Kevin W. Cosby, his students, and the entire Simmons community. Go Simmons Nation.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on my Republican colleagues to approve the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, which would prevent individuals on the terrorist watch list from buying weapons here in the U.S. This legislation has been blocked from coming to the floor for a vote nearly a dozen times over the past 2 weeks. Most Americans find it mind-boggling that we continue to allow individuals deemed too dangerous to fly to buy weapons in the U.S., guns designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to fix this loophole and protect our citizens, to find some courage and put the safety of the American people before the politics of the gun lobby. Mr. Speaker, if Republicans truly have concerns over how the terrorist watch list is constructed, then they should offer an amendment to fix it. But more than 2,000 suspects on the terrorist watch list have already bought guns in our country. We don't need to add to that list. We need to act right now.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 61st Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Steve Beshear, whose tenure as Governor comes to a close this week. Of his many significant accomplishments, none came easily or by happenstance. In fact, national basketball championships for both the Universities of Louisville and Kentucky notwithstanding, it is tough to think of a less enviable time to walk into the Governor's mansion. Within a year of his taking office, the global economy imploded, creating the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes and leading to unemployment as high as 10.7 percent. The health of our State was dismal, with one in five Kentucky adults carrying no health insurance. Mother Nature didn't do him any favors either. During one 11-month span, three presidential disaster declarations were issued for Louisville alone. To say you wouldn't want to be the Governor to face those challenges is an understatement. To say you want Steve Beshear to be your Governor addressing those challenges, well, that is just common sense. Our recovery didn't just happen during the tenure of Steve Beshear. It happened because of Steve Beshear. Because we had a Governor who wasn't concerned with what was popular or politically savvy, he was committed to doing what needed to be done. He said no to the calls for European-style austerity and instead invested in our Commonwealth--in our people, our infrastructure, and our education--giving Kentucky's economy an immediate jolt and keeping our communities and workforce competitive for the long haul. The results speak for themselves. Today unemployment is half of what it was during the Great Recession, under 5 percent for the first time since 2001. Site Selection magazine says there is no better State in the Nation for economic development. Companies are investing in Kentucky like never before, $3.7 billion in investment announced just last year. Kentucky is doing business like never before, with exports of $27.5 billion last year, four times the national average. Mr. Speaker, we are building like we haven't done in a long time. When I say our infrastructure was crumbling, it is not hyperbole. Bridges were literally falling down. Now they are going up. Leaders have been talking about the need for a new Ohio River bridge in Louisville for nearly 50 years. But Governor Beshear doesn't talk the talk. He walks the walk. I will be proud to walk with him across the first of two new Ohio River bridges for the first time this weekend. But it is his stands that he will be most remembered for. If you asked him, Steve will tell you he is just doing what is right. But that takes courage. Thankfully, Kentucky's Governor has had no shortage of that. He reinstated an executive order prohibiting LGBT discrimination against government workers, made Kentucky the first State in the Nation to adopt Common Core and the second to adopt New Generation Science Standards. When it came to medical care, he absolutely refused to play politics with the health of his State. He expanded Medicaid and led the creation of the Nation's most successful health exchange, Kynect, and reduced the number of Kentuckians without health insurance from 20.4 percent to 9 percent, the best improvement in the Nation. In my district alone, the uninsured rate dropped 81 percent. For the first time, quality, affordable health insurance is a reality for hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians. It is thanks to Steve Beshear. Of course, he has been working for the people of Kentucky since long before he was a Governor, and he never did it alone. Throughout his decades of public service, he has depended on the strength of another great Kentucky leader, his wife and our first lady, Jane Beshear. Mr. Speaker, I have been honored to be Steve and Jane's ally these past 8 years and I have been lucky to have them as mine as we worked to revitalize Louisville's manufacturing sector, address our community's infrastructure needs, and make sure Kentucky children, veterans, and working families are taken care of. Over the past 30 years, Mr. Speaker, I have had the honor of calling Steve Beshear my Attorney General, my Lieutenant Governor, and now my Governor. But, above all, I have been most proud to call him my friend. In his first inaugural address in 2007, Governor Beshear noted that the path of progress in Kentucky ``will involve new thinking and new ideas. It will require cooperation and patience. And it will demand courage.'' Steve, you successfully embraced those new ideas, you promoted cooperation and patience, and you had the courage not only to serve, but to serve us well. I wish you the very best as you leave public service. I want to thank you, First Lady Jane Beshear, and your devoted staff for doing the right thing on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, Kentucky is a stronger, more prosperous, and a far healthier place because of the dedication and the work of our Governor Steve Beshear.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my friend from across the Ohio River. I would say that if we want to do things like show what the per-taxpayer impact of our decisions might be, we also might want to look at how much the Federal deficit has been reduced in the last 8 years. In 2009, when President Obama came into office, the Federal deficit was $1.4 trillion. It is now right about just over $400 billion--still a lot of money. But I did the calculation, and that is almost a $7,000 reduction in the deficit per individual taxpayer over the last 8 years. So it can be a positive thing as well. But if we want to add a mathematical calculation to a budget, we really ought to be looking at the one the Republican Party approved in March. That budget, the Republican House budget, doesn't add up. When I say that, I mean it literally doesn't add up. Here are a couple of examples: Their budget fully repeals ObamaCare but still counts all the revenue that is raised from the law. The House has approved more than $610 billion worth of tax cuts this year, yet none of that lost revenue is accounted for in the Republican budget. There are other tax cuts that are scheduled to expire that we all know will be extended, but, again, the Republican budget reflects none of that lost revenue. So, yes, I will support this bill which requires that the President's budget include this one very basic calculation. I just wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would apply basic addition and subtraction to their own budget and, more importantly, deal with the truly important issues that confront this country in the weeks to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 1315, legislation which requires the President's budget to include an estimate of the size of the deficit on a per-taxpayer basis. I don't oppose this legislation-- indeed, I voted for a previous version of it in the last Congress--but I am having a hard time understanding what, if anything, it will accomplish. Requiring the President's budget to include a basic calculation will do nothing to produce better policies or outcomes that the American people are demanding. And when I say ``a basic calculation,'' I am talking about a calculation that my 7-year-old nephew, Lucas, could do probably without his smartphone. But I will vote ``yes'' because I don't think this bill will do any harm. I do think it says something about the majority's priorities that this bill is even being considered. We are facing a series of enormous and serious budget issues, yet the majority is devoting floor time to legislation that is essentially meaningless. Our government is now operating with funding under a continuing resolution that will expire on December 11, and we have failed to address the pending, across-the-board cuts known as sequestration that will drastically reduce funding for education, infrastructure, job training, and nutrition programs for children and the elderly. Those programs aren't meaningless. Millions of Americans depend on them. On top of all that, unless Congress acts, we will default on the full faith and credit of the United States in less than a month. That would cost our economy billions of dollars. We need to be meeting the urgency of the situation with urgent action on the House floor to raise the debt ceiling and avert a disastrous default. Additionally, we only have a few weeks left before the Federal highway program runs out of money again, yet it isn't even scheduled for floor debate. We have yet to extend tax provisions that benefit millions of taxpayers, both individuals and small businesses. They deserve certainty, not meaningless legislation like this. These priorities, which are also the priorities of the American people, demand our attention. We should be working on reaching agreements to resolve these issues. Instead, we are not just wasting our time, we are wasting America's time. Let's face it, this bill has two purposes: first, to create the illusion for the American people that Congress is actually being productive; and, second, to suggest, and possibly to scare, millions of Americans into thinking that they will be responsible for a certain amount of debt--an absurd notion, just as the notion that every American bears an equal share of our tax burden. So, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill. Again, I think it is a pointless exercise, but that is kind of where Congress is in this unfortunate era. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.