John Yarmuth

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Benjamin K. Richmond, the President and C.E.O. of the Louisville Urban League, who retires today after serving our proud city and community for nearly three decades. Since 1987, Ben and his staff have helped countless individuals and families across the city of Louisville achieve economic stability. Under Ben's leadership, the League has broken down barriers to ensure that all Louisvillians have the opportunity to pursue a better education, a better career, and a better life for their families. The organization has been a national model for success, regularly exceeding expectations and finding new ways to tackle the challenges facing our community. Ben was instrumental in creating REBOUND Inc., the Urban League's charitable arm dedicated to housing development and rehabilitation. This program not only transforms vacant and abandoned properties into new houses for low and moderate income families, it helps transform the lives of those families and the neighborhoods they will call home. At every level, Ben's passion and dedication has increased the Urban League's presence and stature throughout Louisville, forging new partnerships with local organizations, businesses, and members of the community. Ben has spent his entire life making sure that all individuals have the opportunity to not only be successful, but to achieve that success while helping others. Quite simply, he is the very embodiment of the mission of the Urban League: to empower communities and change lives. Louisville would not be what it is today without the contributions and commitment of Ben Richmond. I am proud to have worked closely with him through the years, but I'm even prouder to be able to call him a friend. On behalf of the people of Kentucky's Third Congressional District and the city of Louisville, thank you, Ben, for your service and for being such a powerful source of inspiration for so many of us. I wish you all the best in your retirement. It certainly is well deserved.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this historic agreement with Iran. It is good for America, absolutely critical for Israel, and is a historic step toward a more stable Middle East. We entered into P5+1 negotiations with one prevailing goal, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That is what this agreement does. Under this deal, Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. I want to repeat that because there has been a lot of false reports and fearmongering about Iran being able to build a bomb in 10 years or 15 years. Under this deal, Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. This is the third provision of the deal: ``Iran affirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons.'' Iran has agreed to never have a nuclear weapon. With this agreement in place, we will have an unprecedented inspection regimen to guarantee it. IAEA inspectors will have more access in Iran than in any other country in the world. No nuclear site is off limits. They will have access wherever they need it, whenever they need it, and at every single stage of the process. This agreement is built on verification and full cooperation. If Iran fails to meet either of those standards, if at any point inspectors believe that Iran is stonewalling or being uncooperative, the deal is violated and strict sanctions return. Mr. Speaker, this is a good deal, and there is no possibility of a so-called better deal. Our partner nations have made it clear that, if we walk away from this agreement, they will not support the tough sanctions that have brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. That is the reality. As a result, a vote against this agreement is a vote to weaken international sanctions against Iran. It is a vote to allow them a clear path to a nuclear weapon, and it is a vote to make Israel less safe and the Middle East more dangerous. I urge my colleagues to recognize that reality, to support this agreement and allow our President and our Nation to take these historic steps toward a more peaceful world.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend, and I congratulate him and the Republican team on a well-earned victory. Mr. Chairman, as I have said many times in the last few years, elections have consequences. After we lost the majority, we also lost some of our advantage in terms of talented golfers. We need to do a better job of either electing good golfers or of recruiting some of the better ones we have. The Republicans have a terrific team that is made up of truly honorable and wonderful people; and I think we all, on both sides of the aisle, get a great deal of enjoyment from this competition. We have made friends; and as Mr. Crenshaw said, we have succeeded in raising an awful lot of money for a very, very good cause. I thank the Republicans for a great competition, and I thank my teammates for their efforts, but they need to be practicing for the next year a little more. I also want to thank the sponsors who actually contributed to this event and made the fundraising possible. We won 6 years in a row, and the Republicans have now won 4 years in a row. It is interesting how the streaks come along with the majority, so we will give it another try next year. Once again, congratulations to the Republicans. Even more importantly, congratulations to The First Tee for the work that they do. Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, last night in the South Carolina Legislature, we saw Democrats and Republicans join together to take down the Confederate battle flag, many with tears in their eyes and still grieving the nine lives lost in Charleston. While the people of South Carolina move one step past this terrible tragedy, many House Republicans want to take our Nation 150 years back. We were scheduled to vote on the Interior Appropriations bill today. The bill was pulled because Members on the other side of the aisle objected to banning the display and sale of the Confederate flags at national park facilities. For years, I have heard all the arguments from those who defend the display of the Confederate battle flag, but it is moral cowardice to ignore this flag's history of White supremacy and treason, to pretend it symbolizes anything other than a heritage of hate and human oppression. The Confederate battle flag does not belong atop our State capitols, and it certainly should not be sold or displayed at our national parks. It belongs in a museum of shame, alongside the other relics of hate and division that tore our country apart.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately was unable to be present for several votes taken on the House floor on April 30 and May 1, 2015, missing Roll Call Votes #192 through #215. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Roll Call #192: YEA. Roll Call #193: NAY. Roll Call #194: NAY. Roll Call #195: NAY. Roll Call #196: YEA. Roll Call #197: NAY. Roll Call #198: YEA. Roll Call #199: NAY. Roll Call #200: NAY. Roll Call #201: YEA. Roll Call #202: YEA. Roll Call #203: YEA. Roll Call #204: YEA. Roll Call #205: NAY. Roll Call #206: NAY. Roll Call #207: NAY. Roll Call #208: NAY. Roll Call #209: NAY. Roll Call #210: NAY. Roll Call #211: NAY. Roll Call #212: NAY. Roll Call #213: NAY. Roll Call #214: YEA. Roll Call #215: NAY.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Van Hollen yielding. We are talking a lot about gimmicks. Even the conservative Financial Times said the Republicans had to resort to smoke and mirrors to make this budget balance. But I want to talk about one of the other tricks that is used. What the Republicans' budget uses is they do something called dynamic scoring, which basically allows you to project all sorts of, probably, at least, speculative growth based on policies that they would anticipate doing. Now, here is a real-world example of that. This weekend is the Kentucky Derby. It would be as if somebody went out and said: I am going to buy a 2-year-old for $2 million. And then that 2-year-old I am sure is going to win the Kentucky Derby, so I am going to use that $3 million purse that that horse is certainly going to win next year, and I am going to plug that into my budget so my budget comes out ahead. Yes, it could happen, but there is no evidence to believe it will happen. That is one of the ways that this budget reaches so-called balance. There are other macroeconomic effects which we ought to consider, however. As we have mentioned several times, this budget would direct the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The Deloitte professional services firm just did an audit of Kentucky's experience over the last 14 months, 15 months, with the Affordable Care Act. Here is what it said would happen in Kentucky over the next 6 years. $30 billion in increased economic activity, 44,000 new jobs, and a positive impact on the Kentucky State budget of $850 million--that is what would be eliminated from Kentucky. That is another effect of the Republican budget. Think about what it might do in other States-- California, New York, Florida. For it to have that much impact in a State like Kentucky, the national effect would be very consequential. Aside from all of the truly damaging ways in which this budget affects our economy and our citizens, we have to take note of the fact that there are impacts beyond just the Federal budget, and this budget would be a disaster for the American economy and the American people. I urge its defeat.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, primarily because of the gimmickry and the coldheartedness of the conference budget. It is not just myself who has understood the tricks and gimmicks that were used to formulate this so-called balanced budget, which doesn't, of course, balance. It is kind of like if I had gone out and said I am going to spend $2,000 on a cheap racehorse. This is the weekend of the Kentucky Derby. I am going to go out and buy a cheap racehorse, and I am going to enter it in the Kentucky Derby. The horse is going to win the Kentucky Derby, and then I take that prize money from the Kentucky Derby--I might even be so bold as to predict it is going to win the Triple Crown, and I take all that money and put it in my budget as if I had actually done it. That is the way this budget was constructed. But, again, it is not just me. Virtually everyone who has looked at this budget--detached, impartial observers--says this is not legitimate budgeting. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted that the House budget uses ``several budget gimmicks that circumvent budget discipline,'' adding that ``the details are in some ways unrealistic and unspecified.'' The CRFB also observed about the Senate budget, ``Disappointingly, many of the savings are unrealistic or lack specificity.'' Taxpayers for Common Sense said, ``This isn't budgeting, it's gimmickry.'' The Fiscal Times noted that ``there is a widely held belief among many Federal budget watchers that Republicans had to resort to budgetary smoke and mirrors to create a pathway to a balanced budget.'' While my friend from Georgia and other members of the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee are praising the fact that they were able to construct a budget that balances the first time since 2001, it doesn't balance. For instance, what it does is it eliminates, repeals--or calls for the repeal--of the Affordable Care Act and then takes all of the savings and revenues from the Affordable Care Act and counts that as a way to add $2 trillion to the positive side of their budget over 10 years. That is not accurate budgeting. That is gimmickry.

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague. That is not legitimate budgeting. That is just fantasy. That is really what the budget is about. Unfortunately, though, there is a very cruel side to this budget. As my friend from Massachusetts said, this does real damage to the American people. It does damage to hard-working families who are trying to get ahead. It actually ends up being a tax increase on hard-working American families. It repeals the Affordable Care Act, and I just want to talk a little bit about what the Affordable Care Act has done in my State because, if this were to actually happen, here is what the impact on my citizens would be. In Kentucky, according to the DeLoitte professional services firm that did an audit of Kentucky's experience and a projection over the next 6 years, the Affordable Care Act will contribute $30 billion of additional economic activity in the State, create 44,000 jobs, and have a positive impact on the Kentucky State budget of $850 million. That is in one State. If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, not only do you do great damage to the health of Americans, taking insurance away from 16.5 million--in my State, 550,000 who have gained insurance just in the last year and a half--but you are doing real damage to our education, to our infrastructure, to our investment in research, to our seniors. Under this bill, seniors will suffer a great financial hardship, as well as a loss of benefits. There is real damage, as I said, to be done with this budget, but I think the most disturbing part of the entire debate is the fact that this is not a budget that balances. Yes, the numbers at the end on the plus and negative side add up. They actually match after 10 years, but all of the bases for getting there is about as reliable as, again, if I bought that racehorse and said I am going to win the Kentucky Derby and counted those winnings before that race was ever run. I oppose the rule on the basis of this conference report on the budget. I think it does great damage to the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend being willing to yield. I rise in opposition to this rule which deems, as if passed, a budget resolution that, at best, is an economic fantasy and, at worst, does serious damage to our country. The rule before us today is further proof that our Republican colleagues are continuing to rely on faith-based accounting in this budget. They are closing their eyes and praying that it works. But it doesn't work. The numbers don't add up, and this rule makes those shortcomings clear. The funding levels deemed in this measure do not meet our moral obligation to move our country forward and help the American people. Not only do they fail to meet the needs of the people we represent, they fail to meet a basic standard of honest budgeting. For example, we know that trickle-down economics doesn't work. We have seen that time and time again, unfortunately, in this century. Yet, this rule puts in place funding levels that are supposedly balanced by the unsupportable belief that tax cuts generate more revenue. The Republican budget proposals will result in dramatic cuts to education, infrastructure, and innovation, cuts to investments that we know we need to prepare our children and grandchildren to lead the world in the new global economy and to grow our economy. This deemed budget resolution pretends we can afford more tax cuts for the ultrawealthy who do not need them, while it increases taxes for middle class families that they can't afford. This rule deems in place funding levels that will continue to use the overseas contingency operations account budget line as a slush fund, abandoning the Republicans' own commitments to maintaining sequester- level spending for our national defense, while cutting nearly every program that helps hardworking Americans get ahead. At every turn, this measure misses the mark in fulfilling our obligation to adequately fund investments that will allow us to continue our economic recovery. Simply put, this budget falls woefully short. I urge my colleagues to oppose the funding levels deemed in this rule and ensure that American families will not be forced to work harder and get less.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding. I like to read the comic strip in the paper every day, ``The Wizard of Id,'' and, to me, the budgets that we have seen coming out of the House and Senate are kind of like ``The Wizard of Id'' budgets. He cast a magic spell, he went ``poof,'' and all of a sudden we have created a balanced budget that is going to solve all this Nation's problems in the next 10 years. I don't think there are many gullible people out there who actually believe that will be the case. But we know some things for certain in this budget. We know that many, many important government investments are going to be cut beyond any reasonable limit, and to dangerous limits. We know, for instance, that within a matter of months, the highway trust fund is going to run out of money. We have $2 trillion worth of unmet infrastructure needs currently on the drawing board. These two budgets cut funding to make up some of that incredibly necessary infrastructure work. This budget slashes money for innovation, for research. The one greatest advantage this country has in the global economy is our innovative talent. This budget says we can wait for that. Not in this world that is moving 100 miles an hour. We can't wait for that. Every time we cut research we are setting back, again, our greatest advantage for years. As my colleague from Maryland mentioned, education: devastating cuts to Head Start, K-12 education, the one thing that can guarantee a hard- working American family's children the opportunity to succeed and have a life that they dream about. So I fully support our motion to instruct. I think we deal with two problems that clearly face us and face working families throughout our country: the ability to actually care for yourself if you are sick, or your family member, and not lose income, something virtually every industrialized nation has. We can do that. When my friend from Georgia talked about making hard choices, this is an easy choice. Let's not worry about too many of the hard choices. Let's make the easy ones that can help. We can do comprehensive immigration reform, which is contemplated in the Democratic budget. That not only helps reduce the deficit, it solves one of our most daunting national challenges. We could do that. That would be an easy choice. But we do have hard choices to make. The Republicans want to voucherize the Medicare system. They say it creates choice. It also puts insurance companies back in charge of seniors' health care. I am not sure American seniors look forward to that scenario. So we want to go in a different direction, again, providing sick leave so that people can take care of their families without losing their income, and also involving doing away with the Medicare voucher system. We think that this will help make the budget a better budget. It is still a disastrous budget, but I urge that we accept the motion to instruct.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall 153 of the Motion to Instruct Conferees on S. Con. Res. 11, I inadvertently voted ``no''. I intended to vote ``yes'' and spoke in favor of the motion during floor debate earlier today.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, as a 6-year member of the Budget Committee and the second ranking Democrat, I have seen this budget proposal up close and personal. I have seen the way it has been reshaped over the years, from its early days as the first Ryan budget, to the collection of budget tricks and gimmicks we find before us today. Despite the highly questionable math and mysterious growth projections, the consequences are clear. This budget hurts American families now and in the future, hitting their pocketbooks and their checkbooks today while disinvesting in our and their future. It immediately raises taxes on the hard-working families who are simply looking for a shot at the American Dream: owning a home, providing their kids with access to a good education, living a healthy life, and being able to save for retirement while their parents enjoy theirs. It makes college more expensive for those families, cutting Pell grants by $90 billion and eliminating higher education tax credits. It cuts investment in our infrastructure and innovation, leaving us less competitive in the global economy. This budget takes more than 16 million men, women, and children off of the health insurance plan they have now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. People will, again, be denied care because of preexisting conditions. Lifetime caps on coverage return. If the Affordable Care Act were repealed, as proposed in the Republicans' ``work harder for less'' budget, here is what would happen in my State: more than 500,000 Kentuckians would lose their healthcare coverage. We wouldn't gain the 40,000 new jobs that are projected over the next 6 years because of the Affordable Care Act, and the Kentucky budget would miss out on $800 million more in revenue. For seniors, this budget ends the guarantee of Medicare as we know it. Prescription drug costs will go up on day one. Copays will increase. The prescription drug doughnut hole will reopen. Eventually, seniors will be given a voucher and sent on their way, told to find their own health plan--ironically, something that very, very closely resembles the healthcare exchanges that our friends on the other side despise so much. This is not what the American people want. They want us to invest in our people, invest in innovation, and continue our economic recovery by creating new opportunities. The Democratic budget will do just that, cutting taxes for working families, making college more affordable, health care more accessible, and retirement more secure. It is time we reward hard work, and I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat some things that I have heard over the last couple of weeks about this particular situation: ``I fully believe we should not be playing politics with a national security agency like the Department of Homeland Security, particularly given the high threat environment that we are in right now.'' ``The political impasse on DHS funding must end. Responsible members of both parties must work together to find some way to fund DHS without further delay.'' ``The worst thing we can do is let our enemies think we are backing off, that we are cutting off funding. This involves human lives, and this is too risky a game to be playing here. This is no way to run a government.'' Madam Speaker, those aren't my words. Those are words from Republican Members of this body discussing the reckless game that their party is playing with the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. Every rationale I have heard for not voting for a clean funding bill right now involves some kind of an ideological orientation. We have got a lot of constitutional lawyers, apparently, in this body because people are arguing whether it is constitutional or not. Meanwhile, we face threats day in and day out, both here and abroad, that we are not being able to cope with. There is a great or legendary conservative thinker and writer, William F. Buckley, Jr. He once said: ``Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.'' Right now, the costs to our defense, the security of our Nation are becoming prohibitive. Let's stop this argument. Let's do what we both agree on and fund our Nation's security apparatus.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on my Republican colleagues to not let their immigration reform politics weaken border security, paralyze our ports, and shut down the Department of Homeland Security created in the wake of 9/11. If we do not pass a clean funding bill, more than 20 percent of FEMA personnel will be furloughed, crippling our ability to respond to disasters; management and support of our entire homeland security infrastructure would shut down; and essential personnel would be forced to work without pay. That is 40,000 Border Patrol agents and Customs officers risking their lives for free because of a political stunt. That is 50,000 TSA screeners who guard our nationwide travel, keeping the USA safe, yet going without pay because the Republican leadership is putting politics ahead of security. And it is more than 40,000 Active Duty Coast Guard officers standing guard on our shores, proudly serving a country whose political leaders don't seem to care if they get paid for their sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, the stakes are too high. The risk is too real. Republicans need to stop their anti-immigrant tantrum and end this dangerous game. Pass a clean DHS funding bill today to protect our great Nation.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today, we will take our 56th vote to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act. In my home State of Kentucky--a nationwide success story of this law--521,000 Kentuckians enrolled in health coverage last year. That is more than a half a million people in a State with a population of just over 4 million. Seventy-five percent of those who signed up were previously uninsured. These are maps of before and after uninsured rates in our 120 counties. The orange and red represent uninsured rates of 14 percent to more than 20 percent. The dark blue is less than 5 percent. Today, after the Affordable Care Act, every single county has had a reduction in their uninsured rates. In some areas, uninsured rates have plummeted by more than 65 percent. As we watch these uninsured rates drop, as the counties on this map go from red to green or blue, that is another person getting the care or treatment they need, a family's future transformed, lives saved. This law is a success. The Affordable Care Act is working, and you need to look no further than the Commonwealth of Kentucky to see the proof. Repealing the Affordable Care Act at this stage would be an absolute death sentence to thousands of people in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and throughout the country. We cannot let this happen. I urge a vote against the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, this week, as we consider measures aimed at combating human trafficking, I remind my colleagues of the estimated 1.6 million runaway or homeless youths under the age of 18 in the United States. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act was enacted in 1974 to help combat these growing numbers, and it is the sole Federal law targeting unaccompanied youths. Through this law, we are able to fund important local programs to serve our homeless youths. They provide shelter, counseling, family reunification, and aftercare, and they reduce the chance that young people will become victims of human trafficking. I am proud to have introduced and to have helped pass the reauthorization of this important funding in 2008, but that 5-year authorization expired in 2014, and now action must be taken. Congress has a responsibility to help ensure that homeless young people in America have a place to seek shelter and to find safety while laying a foundation for new opportunities. I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting a reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and help the hundreds of thousands of children who sleep on our streets every night.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, last night President Obama addressed the Nation and reminded us of the crossroads at which we stand: Do we continue on the path we are on where only a select few prosper while so many families struggle? Or will we instead work to rebuild our middle class, grow our economy, and create new opportunities for success? But here today, Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is clear that the priorities of this body's majority are not in line with the majority of Americans. The American people don't want more of the same. They want better access to education, better infrastructure, and an honest chance at the American Dream. They want a fair college loan system, and they want the relief of knowing that their retirement and their parents' retirement is safe and sound, not left to the whims of Wall Street. As President Obama made clear, they want a tax system that rewards work, not wealth. I am proud to support many of the priorities laid out in last night's speech because they put practicality above partisan politics. Let's hope for the sake of the American people that this Congress does the same.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of games being played at this time of year. Tonight, we are going to have a national championship game for the NCAA national football championship, playoff games for the NFL championship. We have basketball games being played and hockey games. The American people don't need games being played in the House of Representatives, but that is exactly what we are seeing this week. The Republican majority is holding hostage the security of this Nation--holding the Department of Homeland Security's budget hostage-- so they can advance some ideological provisions on immigration reform. This is nothing but a big pout on the part of the Republican majority because they are upset with the President's executive action. If they want to undo what the President has done and proceed toward a sane immigration policy, we have an entire body of Democrats and Republicans who is waiting to do that. I was part of the bipartisan group last year that worked for the entire Congress in trying to get that done. I know it is possible. No more games, Mr. Speaker. We need action--we need sane action--and not holding our national security hostage.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Michael B. McCall, the Founding President of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS). Since 1998, Dr. McCall has served as system President. His exemplary service has greatly benefited community colleges throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky, including Jefferson Community and Technical College, which is in my Congressional district. Under Dr. McCall's leadership, KCTCS has become the largest provider of post-secondary education in Kentucky. This year, KCTCS enrolled more than 92,000 students and remains the largest provider of workforce training in the Commonwealth, serving more than 5,300 businesses and training more than 52,000 employees every year. Recently, a study by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems reviewed many of the accomplishments achieved under Dr. McCall stewardship and found that ``Relative to most other public community and technical college systems in the U.S., KCTCS has improved dramatically on the key measures of student participation and completion. Enrollment in the system has nearly doubled since 2001 and its production of college credentials has increased by more than 400 percent.'' Dr. McCall has spent the last fifteen years dedicated to improving Kentucky's workforce and economy by leading the transformation of KCTCS. I would like to thank Dr. McCall for his commitment to improving the lives of Kentucky families and for his service to the Commonwealth. I wish you the best in your retirement.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This has been a fascinating week in terms of the environment. We started it with the President orchestrating one of the truly groundbreaking breakthroughs in carbon emissions and getting the Chinese, for the first time, to agree to limit their carbon emissions, setting new standards for the United States. Then this week, in the Congress, we basically have three bills that are the equivalent of saying, through statute, to polluters, ``Smoke 'em if you got 'em.'' I mean, three bills that represent one of the worst trifectas I have ever seen, and I come from horse racing country. Yesterday we voted on a bill that, in the title, suggests that we are somehow improving the science behind the environment, and basically what it did was limit the ability of EPA to have scientists as part of the decisionmaking process. Today we are discussing the so-called Promoting New Manufacturing Act, and, as we heard from my good friend from Kentucky, the goal of the legislation is to facilitate a manufacturing renaissance in the United States by expediting air permits for new facilities. But the premise of the bill is very flawed: new manufacturing facilities aren't being held back by clean air requirements; weakening the Clean Air Act won't create jobs; and the specific provisions of this bill will slow down permitting, not speed it up. In truth, this bill is yet another Republican attempt to weaken the Clean Air Act protections and attack EPA's authority to reduce harmful air pollution. The Clean Air Act requires major new or expanding sources of air pollution to obtain permits with pollution limits before the facilities start construction. It is a lot easier and less costly to minimize air pollution when you are designing and building a facility compared to cleaning up existing facilities. These pre-construction permits are based on a simple principle: a new facility should not increase local air pollution above levels that are safe to breathe. The bill before us violates this principle by creating a permitting loophole, allowing new facilities to obtain permits under old, less protective air quality standards unless EPA promulgates new regulations or guidelines. This provision is bad for existing manufacturing in the United States. The permitting loophole would actually impose new costs on the manufacturing sector rather than help it. The bill allows new facilities to pollute more than their fair share, leaving the existing manufacturers to make up the difference. In areas struggling to clean up their air, like in my district in Louisville, Kentucky, this effectively shifts the responsibility and cost of pollution control to existing manufacturing facilities. This provision does not make economic sense. Furthermore, in all of the limited testimony pursuant to considering this bill, there was not one company identified that actually said they would build a manufacturing facility if they could do it under older guidelines. I am kind of amused that the Republicans now want the EPA to issue nationwide guidelines, when their ideology says States are better prepared to deal with issues at their own level; and, in fact, States, under the existing law, have done a very, very good job of creating guidelines and strategies for meeting problems with pollution in their jurisdiction. So, for a wide variety of reasons, this bill doesn't accomplish what its title suggests, and we urge its defeat. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I close my side of the argument, I would like to take this opportunity, once again, to thank my colleague Mr. Waxman for his incredible service to this body and to the country over the last several decades. One of the first things I did when I was elected to Congress in 2006 was to call Mr. Waxman to ask if I could serve under his leadership on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee because I respected him so much. He has been a phenomenal mentor to me, as he has been to hundreds of other Members of Congress over the years, and I think the country owes him a great debt of gratitude. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, in the spirit of his championing of the environment, what we have seen again this week, not just with this bill but with the two other bills in the last 2 days, is kind of a ``wolf in sheep's clothing'' approach to the environment--dressing legislation up with very, very nice-sounding titles that essentially do exactly the opposite of what they are intending to do. This bill, far from promoting manufacturing, will make it much more difficult for the EPA to set rules, and in the process, it will not accomplish anything in encouraging manufacturing. I don't know of one businessperson who would say, ``I am going to build a plant that I, otherwise, would not build because I get to build it under old pollution rules.'' Most businesspeople are very forward looking. They look for opportunities not to exploit the environment. They look for opportunities to make money because they have a vision. Virtually every good businessperson I know these days understands that building facilities that have the latest technologies and the cleanest technologies is the way to make money and to make sound business decisions. For all of those reasons, as Mr. Waxman laid out in very clear terms, this bill does not promote manufacturing. It will do, actually, the opposite, so we urge the defeat of the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, it is now my great honor to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), one of the truly great champions of the environment who has ever served in this body.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast the recorded vote for rollcall 497. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' for this measure. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following these votes. Bill: H.R. 5108--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended; Rollcall No. 497; Vote: ``yes.''