John Yarmuth

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from across the aisle like to talk a lot about personal responsibility, but their decision to adjourn Congress for nearly 2 months shows how little they actually understand the concept. Congress is facing serious deadlines right now, and we should be dealing with the problems the American people sent us here to solve. Instead, Republican leadership has decided that we should go home without doing any of it and taking with us one of the worst report cards in American history. For more than a year now, Republicans have ignored a plan to create 2.6 million new jobs and protect another 1.6 million existing jobs. They won't even bring it to the floor for a vote. Right now we could bring to the floor and send to the President's desk a bill that would protect tax cuts for 98 percent of the American people and 97 percent of small businesses, but instead we're going home. Republicans seem content to take our country off the fiscal cliff, which will hobble our economy, raise taxes on millions of working families, and once again shift the responsibility of our deficit to those who can least afford it. Mr. Speaker, Republicans can't preach personal responsibility if they're not willing to accept it themselves.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding. As a member of the Committee on Ethics and as the ranking member of the investigative subcommittee in this matter, I rise in support of the resolution that calls for the adoption of this committee's report and will serve as a reprimand of Representative Richardson for her conduct and will impose upon her a $10,000 fine. After the investigative subcommittee unanimously concluded that there was substantial reason to believe that Representative Richardson had committed these violations, Representative Richardson initiated formal discussions regarding a negotiated resolution of her matter, which would avoid an adjudicatory hearing. The investigative subcommittee engaged Representative Richardson in good faith during these discussions, delaying its vote on a Statement of Alleged Violation by more than a week to continue negotiating. On July 18, 2012, Representative Richardson agreed to the terms of a negotiated resolution with the investigative subcommittee. As a part of that resolution, Representative Richardson has admitted to the seven counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation. There is no longer a factual dispute regarding whether these violations have been proven. On July 26, 2012, the investigative subcommittee unanimously adopted its report and transmitted it to the full committee. Representative Richardson was provided a copy of the report. Pursuant to the terms of the negotiated resolution, she was given 5 days to submit her views. On July 25, 2012, Representative Richardson submitted her views on the report in writing. Those views were transmitted, along with the investigative subcommittee report, and considered by the full committee. As noted in the committee's report, the members were not persuaded by Representative Richardson's submission. Some of the terms in the negotiated resolution require action only by the Ethics Committee or Representative Richardson, but there are terms that have been brought before the House today, Mr. Speaker, and that is the need for the House to impose the punishment that all parties agree is an acceptable sanction for Representative Richardson's misconduct: a reprimand by the House of Representatives and the imposition of a $10,000 fine. It is important for all Members to understand that it is our responsibility to ensure that if our staffs wish to work on our campaigns, they must do it on their own time, outside of their office, and without the use of any official resources. A staffer is free to volunteer, but a Member cannot compel them to do so. Mr. Speaker, it became clear during the investigation that Representative Richardson did not believe that she was compelling her official staff to work on her campaign. It was equally clear, after hearing from members of her staff, that they believed they were being compelled to do so. There are examples of Representative Richardson providing explicit directions to her staff to work on her campaign. There are more numerous examples when Representative Richardson's actions would lead any reasonable staffer to believe that they were required to do campaign work or face retribution. The way Members treat and manage their staffs is often as important and significant an influence on employee understanding and actions as any words a Member may use. Ultimately, it is also the Member's responsibility to know and manage what is being asked of their staff and what isn't. As this case shows, when these rules are broken, Members are not only responsible, they will be held accountable. Mr. Speaker, I, once again, support the approval of the Ethics Committee report and the sanctions imposed on Ms. Richardson.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule which, if enacted, will block United States servicemembers and veterans from getting the best care and services we can offer. In the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to exempt from the proposed moratorium any regulation that is related to the health and safety of United States servicemembers and veterans. I did so because I believe, as I'm certain all my colleagues do, that servicemembers and veterans are best served when the agencies that serve them can provide critical treatment and assistance in a timely and responsive manner. Doing so often requires writing new rules and regulations. We should not, for example, block a new regulation that allows the VA to provide medical or other benefits to caregivers of veterans and servicemembers in exchange for a new talking point about the economy. My colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee agreed. My amendment was unanimously approved in a bipartisan fashion. Yet, inexplicably, Republicans are now blocking it from a full vote. Suddenly, they're ready to let our commitments to our heroes lapse. And for what, a new talking point? Over the next 5 years, more than 1 million veterans will return home from war. Part of our commitment to them must be to ensure that they have the best services available, whether that's in health care, job training, or educational benefits. Mr. Speaker, most legislation has unanticipated consequences. This legislation has a consequence that is easily anticipated, and that is that we will be tying the hands of the agencies that serve our brave men and women in the armed services. I ask any one of my Republican colleagues from the Rules Committee to explain why this amendment wasn't made in order and why this rule is sending a message to our military and veterans that they aren't entitled to the best we have. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the bill.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, twice this week, Senate Republicans blocked a vote on the DISCLOSE Act, which would shine a much-needed light on the dark corners of secret, anonymous political spending. The bill stands on a simple idea: Voters have a right to know who is trying to influence their votes. This year alone, more than 600 super PACs have spent $133 million on outside ads--most of which have been negative and, many, dishonest. It's much easier to lie about a candidate when you're anonymous--and when you can't be held accountable. The American people see the damage being done. More than three- quarters of voters believe financial campaign reform is a key national issue, and the vast majority of Americans oppose the Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates for outside spending and dishonesty in elections. But even in the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court anticipated that Congress would require disclosure as a critical means of providing transparency in campaigns. Madam Speaker, the voters have a right to judge the credibility of campaign ads, and they can't do that without disclosure of those who are paying for them.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my good friend from Florida. I want to congratulate the Republicans on their victory. All good things must come to an end. Our 5-year winning streak was broken through, largely, superior play, although I do question some of the strategy that was invoked by the Republican team, notably Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Gowdy wearing matching plaid Bermuda shorts, which distracted all of my team members. But seriously, this is a great event, and it was conducted very much in accordance with the nine core values that the First Tee espouses, particularly sportsmanship, honesty, integrity, and courtesy. I think all of us enjoyed the day and left the event much closer than when we started. There was a great spirit of collegiality as well as competition. Once again, I want to thank all of my fellow team members on the Democratic side. I congratulate the Republicans. Once again, I congratulate and thank the First Tee for all they do to promote high qualities among our youth in America.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a newsman and writer whose desire to inform and enrich his community led to a 43- year career in journalism. Keith Runyon retired from the Louisville Courier-Journal in April, leaving behind a matchless legacy. One of Kentucky's longest-serving and most distinguished journalists, Keith spent 35 years on the newspaper's editorial board, where he skillfully guided the C-J through times of national turmoil and triumph to local controversy and accomplishment. The landscape of Keith's career is decorated with awards, and earlier this year he received one of the most prestigious: The Society of Professional Journalists' acclaimed Sigma Delta Chi Award. Keith was the last member of the editorial board to have a direct connection to the Bingham Family, who owned and operated the Louisville Courier-Journal for three generations. The Binghams' two-tiered commitment to solid, fact-based journalism and advocacy for social justice has always remained--in Keith, and in all those who he has advised over the years. But Keith's field of vision has always been broader than political reporting and commentary. Through most of his career, he also served as editor of the C-J's books page, driving to expand coverage of literature and nonfiction at a time when most major U.S. newspapers are cutting back. Among the many responsibilities of journalists and commentators is to fully envision the kind of community where you want to live and work to achieve it. We are indebted to Keith for his years spent in service of that cause. His legacy will be the decency, equality, and justice that he fought for and inspired throughout our community. On behalf of the 3rd Congressional District, I thank Keith for more than four decades of contributions to our city, and I wish him years of happiness and continued success in his retirement.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, every 44 seconds, a 2013 Ford Escape comes off the line at the Louisville assembly plant. The Escape's parts make their way along 20 miles of conveyers inside a 3 million-square-foot facility that stretches a mile from corner to corner. Inside that facility are more than 4,200 Louisvillians--and a few Hoosiers--operating state-of-the art machinery capable of producing six different vehicles. Ford has a long and robust history in Louisville. The company has been manufacturing vehicles in Derby City since the Model T in 1913. The Louisville assembly plant opened in 1955 and since then has produced the Ford Ranger, the Bronco II, and the Explorer, to name just a few. Across town, the Kentucky truck plant has been operating since 1969 and employs nearly 5,000 workers. For years, both plants thrived--and with them, families. Just recently, a woman who now works at Ford told me that her dad had worked there for 50 years. Stories of Ford careers that span lifetimes--and generations--aren't rare in Louisville. There are fathers and daughters who have built careers side-by-side on the line. But by 2008, the Louisville assembly plant was outmoded and the U.S. economy was in crisis. The plant's future was clouded with uncertainty. Workers came to work everyday not knowing whether their jobs would be there tomorrow. Ford needed to innovate. It needed to produce vehicles that the American people could afford, that were sleeker and more fuel efficient, and that met a changing desire among car buyers who wanted more dynamic, economical vehicles. But the company needed a financial bridge to do it. In Congress, I worked to include the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Ford received a $5.9 billion loan through the program, which allowed the company to invest $600 million in the Louisville assembly plant and to remap their future. In 3 years, the Louisville assembly plant has gone from uncertainty to a complete retooling. Last month, I was proud to join Ford officials and hundreds of workers to unveil what is now the biggest, most flexible high-volume Ford plant in North America. The plant has added more than 3,000 jobs, and the increases in production have led to thousands more suppliers, of which there are 500 for the new Escape model alone. Ford also worked with the UAW to renegotiate its contract and add a third shift at the plant. By the end of this year, the company will employ more than 8,000 people in Louisville. The positive relationships forged between organized labor and Ford in Louisville should serve as a model of compromise and cooperation for the rest of the Nation. The Escape is a success story of American ingenuity and innovation for the private sector, for organized labor, and for the Federal Government. And it's a victory for Kentucky. Ford's new investments at the Louisville assembly plant and the Kentucky truck plant are expected to contribute more than $800 million to our Commonwealth's GDP. Let's be clear: this happened because of the leadership of Ford, UAW, and our unparalleled workforce. But none of it would have been possible without key government investments to advance large-scale innovation. There were some who said we should let the auto industry fail. In Louisville, that would have meant putting thousands of Ford workers out on the street. It would have meant that the thousands of workers at supply companies who provide parts for the new Escape would have been updating their resumes instead of assembling Ford's newest and most advanced models. And it would have been an admission that in America our best manufacturing days are behind us. We're proving that wrong every day in Louisville and across the country. Over the past 28 months, American manufacturers have created nearly 500,000 jobs. That's the strongest period of growth in manufacturing employment since 1995. And it's because we are using strategic Federal investments to spur innovation and leverage private sector investment. Just this month, the AP reported that Ford Motor Company sales rose 7 percent in June. The reason? Strong demand for the new Escape, which is selling at a higher rate than ever before. There are still plenty who say government is part of the problem, not part of the solution. But since at least the 1940s, we have known and generally acknowledged that the market cannot do it all on its own and that there is a role for government in pursuing short and long-term economic growth and prosperity in this country. You can find it in Louisville. Our workers, Ford, and government partners--Federal, State, and local--have shown just how successful we can be working together to build the vehicles of the future and the innovations that keep our city, and our country, on the leading edge of manufacturing.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, today the House will consider a repeal of the Affordable Care Act for the 31st time. We will spend at least 6 hours debating this, but not 1 minute considering a Republican replacement. That's because there isn't one. The American people are now experiencing the benefits of the law: allowing young people to stay on their parents' policies until the young people are 26; requiring insurance companies to cover children regardless of preexisting conditions. The Republican leadership had the choice to include those provisions and others in this bill. Yet, once again, they are choosing to deny care to millions of Americans instead. With this bill, the Republicans are choosing to cut young people off of their parents' coverage. They are choosing to end the guaranteed coverage for children with juvenile diabetes, autism, asthma, and other illnesses. They are choosing to raise prescription drug costs for seniors, and they are choosing to allow insurance companies to charge women more for the same policies as men. Madam Speaker, I invite any Republican in this body to come to the floor and to explain to my constituents and theirs why they've made the choice to repeal all of these patient protections while offering the American people nothing in return.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the health care reform act, the Affordable Care Act, we continued to hear cries of ``read the bill, read the bill, read the bill,'' as if those of us who had supported the bill had not read it. As a matter of fact, I, among many, had read it; and we were astounded at the misrepresentations that were out in the public, foisted by our Republican opponents. Well, I'm going to be generous today and assume that they just hadn't read that bill. But now that bill is unquestionably the law of the land. So I implore my Republican colleagues, before they continue to mislead and confuse their constituents, read the law. Read the law. Read the law.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, in 2003, the current Senate minority leader told NPR: Money is essential in politics, and not something that we should feel squeamish about--provided the donations are limited and disclosed, everyone knows who's supporting everyone else. I agree with that version of Senator McConnell. But there's a new version who revealed last week that he doesn't think that we should know who's buying our democracy, and he compared this administration's opposition to unlimited anonymous campaign contributions to the Nixon administration. I understand why Nixon came to mind, but I think the Senator is projecting here. After all, he now believes anonymous donors using secret money should be able to influence elections, all out of public view. Nixon wrote that playbook. Anonymity allows people in campaigns to distort the truth at best, or to lie outright, with no chance of being held accountable. If you oppose disclosure of campaign financiers, you're endorsing dishonest campaigns. Madam Speaker, the voters have a right to judge the credibility of campaign ads, and that is simply impossible without disclosure of those who are influencing our elections.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, it seems like Groundhog Day all over again. Earlier this week, GOP leaders laid down a new gambit on the old debate over whether to acknowledge our Nation's financial obligations. Those leaders have already abandoned the deal we made on the last debt ceiling package and are shifting all the cuts to education, infrastructure, and other vital domestic programs. Now they want another round of unsustainable cuts to these programs which will again bring us back to the brink of default. We know the possible consequences: Market collapse, jobs lost, more than $1 trillion added to the deficit every year, interest rates will rise. Just getting close to this cliff threatens the U.S. credit rating. We know that from recent experience. The Speaker has said, no, he doesn't want to abandon the debt ceiling, he doesn't want to violate the debt ceiling, he doesn't want to let the country go into default. But isn't this the same kind of uncertainty that our Republican friends say they are most concerned about? One day it's, Well, we're not going to raise the debt ceiling. The next day, No, I didn't mean that. We need certainty; we need stability, and we need to recognize this Nation's obligations.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, I was unable to cast the record votes for rollcalls 250, 251, 252, 255 and 256. Had I been present I would have voted as follows for these measures: H.R. 365, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, No. 250, ``yes''; H.R. 3874, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, No. 251, ``yes''; H.R. 205, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, No. 252, ``yes''; H.R. 656, on Agreeing to the Resolution, No. 255, ``no''; and H.R. 4119, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, No. 256, ``yes.''

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast the recorded vote for rollcall No. 235. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this measure.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, most of us remember a teacher who made us look at the world a little differently, introduced us to a new idea or changed the way we thought. For me, that teacher was Betty Miles. For 2 years at Atherton High School in Louisville, my English teacher introduced me to an entire universe of thought and language, and I am forever grateful. Across the country, millions of people like Betty Miles are introducing young Americans to new concepts that will stick with them for a lifetime. Their work is critical for our most fundamental national interest: to build and maintain a strong and vibrant economy and to remain at the forefront of global innovation and ideas. And their daily sacrifices on behalf of growing generations are nothing short of heroic. Much in the way teachers change the lives of their students, their voices also shape debate in Washington. As we consider the future of public education in this country, we must also continue to hear from those on the ground to better address the challenges facing our school systems. Mr. Speaker, today on National Teacher Day, I encourage everyone to not only thank their teachers, but to ask them this essential question: How can we do better?

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle like to say they support small business owners, but other than keeping fact- checkers employed, Republican leaders are holding back those businesses by continuing to make false claims about the Affordable Care Act. In my Louisville district, more than 15,000 small businesses could qualify for tax credits to help offset the cost of providing health insurance for their employees. A small business with 24 employees paying average health care costs could receive almost $40,000 a year in tax credits right now under the Affordable Care Act, but only 530 out of those 15,000 businesses have taken advantage of it. The situation is like that across the country. Why is that? Could it be that the people they elected to represent them in Congress have repeatedly told them that this law is bad for business? As Members of Congress, I believe it is our responsibility to give our constituents an honest and accurate picture of what Federal laws and policies will do to affect their lives. And yet more than 2 years after the Affordable Care Act became law, Republican leaders continue to make false claims about it. Mr. Speaker, the small business owners in my district appreciate knowing the truth about how Federal laws can benefit them.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend from Maryland. Mr. Chairman, a recent analysis of American tax returns showed that in 2010, the top 1 percent of earners in the United States earned $288 billion more than they had in 2009--$288 billion more, the top 1 percent. In fact, that was 93 percent of all the additional income earned in the entire United States from year to year, 2009 to 2010. Now, apparently, my friends on the Republican side were outraged that 7 percent of the additional income could slip away to the other 99 percent of American families because they came up with a budget that tried to rectify that immediately. I call it the ``Republican 1 percent budget.'' It's a gift basket for billionaires and millionaires. It contains a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, which have created an income gap in this country on par with Cameroon and Rwanda. But the ``Republican 1 percent budget'' doesn't stop there. It gives an additional tax break of $150,000 a year for everyone making more than $1 million a year. And it does that by dismantling Medicare, slashing education funding, transportation, and things like the SNAP program which help so many needy families in this country. Mr. Chairman, income inequality has become the central tenet of Republican ideology. The budget we will probably vote on later makes their commitment to widening the income gap abundantly clear. That's why I call the Republican budget, in addition to the ``1 percent budget,'' this is the ``all for 1 budget.'' It's a budget that's all for the 1 percent. By contrast, the Democratic budget, the resolution we are offering now, is really the ``one for all budget,'' one budget that provides benefits for all Americans. It makes the critical investments that we need to make sure all Americans have equal opportunity and equal tools to realize the American Dream, and it makes sure that all contribute to the deficit reduction that we all are committed to. Everybody plays a part; everybody does their share. I support the Democratic budget and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, today I have the distinct privilege of recognizing and celebrating the Louisville Ballet on its 60th anniversary. As Kentucky's official ballet company, the Louisville Ballet has long been a source of pride and distinction for the people of our community and the Commonwealth. Since its formation in 1952, the Louisville Ballet has transformed from a small, understaffed-yet-dedicated company, to one of the Southeast's premier artistic institutions--employing a world-class company of dancers and an equally talented staff of professionals that make each performance come to life. Today, the company has a repertoire of more than 150 works, has been the recipient of numerous accolades, and maintains the distinction of being the only regional company to perform with the great Mikhail Baryshnikov. It also contributes to the artistic and cultural core of Louisville, which is one of only 11 U.S. cities with all five major arts institutions. Under the leadership and vision of Artistic Director Bruce Simpson, the past 10 years have been among the Ballet's strongest, with the company commissioning 13 world premieres. Each performance offers the precision and grace witnessed among ballet's elite. On behalf of the 3rd Congressional District, I wish the Louisville Ballet Company future success and look forward to another 60 years of excellence and awe-inspiring performances.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise todry in honor of the Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission, which celebrates its 50th anniversary today. More than two years before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the city of Louisville asserted itself as a voice of compassion and reason in the face of hate, building on a recent history of social progress by passing an ordinance to formally condemn racial and religious discrimination. The ordinance referred to elements that are ``contrary to public policy and detrimental to the peace, progress, and welfare of the city,'' and in doing so created a city agency to monitor and adjudicate discrimination in public accommodations at a time when Louisville--and much of the country--was working to fully integrate schools, housing, neighborhoods, and public employment. Over the past 50 years, the Commission has helped preserve and advance that history of progress, serving as a conscience for our community and protecting our citizens from discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, familial status, age, disability, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. It has been a primary force in building a safe and supportive community where diversity is not only accepted, but embraced. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission on 50 years of important work, and I look forward to another 50.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, a recent analysis of American tax revenues revealed that in 2010, as our country was recovering from the Great Recession, 93 percent of new income went to the top 1 percent of earners. That's $288 billion more exclusively for the 1 percent. I am sure my friends across the aisle were outraged that 7 percent could go to waste on the other 99 percent of American families. Their solution: the Republican 1 percent budget--a gift basket for millionaires and billionaires. Inside is a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, which have created an income gap in this country on par with Cameroon and Rwanda. But the Republicans' 1 percent budget doesn't stop there. It gives an additional tax break of $150,000 to people earning more than $1 million a year while dismantling Medicare, slashing education, transportation, and the social safety net to pay for it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ``all for one and the one percent gets all'' budget and to support a plan that reflects our Nation's values of fairness and shared responsibility.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of National Safe Place Awareness Week. Every year in America, as many as 2.8 million young people run away from or are pushed out of their homes. Almost half of them do so because of a family conflict. A young person in crisis is often scared and confused. The distinctive yellow-and-black sign that marks a Safe Place location is a universal symbol of safety and assistance. It signifies a place--a business, school, fire station, library, or many others--where a young person in crisis can get help. There are almost 20,000 Safe Place locations throughout the country, in 40 states and 1,562 communities. During the past 12 years, National Safe Place agencies have counseled nearly 90,000 young people in person and more than 110,000 via telephone. Sadly, the need for Safe Place services continues to grow. In response, National Safe Place is seeking to give more young people a place to turn for help--regardless of their circumstance. [Mr.] Speaker, I have introduced a resolution recognizing March 18 24 as ``National Safe Place Awareness Week.'' The goal is not only to have more signs hanging across the country, it is to raise awareness and support of the vital programs National Safe Place provides for young people in the most vulnerable of situations. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, Rush Limbaugh's appalling attack on Georgetown student Sandra Fluke is no isolated incident, but part of a broader GOP assault on women's health. Republicans have ushered in Women's History Month with legislation to allow employers and insurance companies to deny women needed health coverage. But let's also take a look at their recent record on issues important to women's health. Last year, Republicans voted to end Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of reproductive health services in the United States. They voted to eliminate funding for Title X family planning which, for 40 years, has provided family planning services, cancer screenings, and other preventive health services to low-income women. And with their attempt to repeal the health care reform law, Republicans voted to allow insurance companies to, once again, deny women coverage if they've ever been pregnant, had a C-section, or been the victim of domestic violence. Madam Speaker, Republicans' idea of Women's History Month is reenacting the women's equality fight of 100 years ago. I call on my GOP colleagues to join us here in the 21st century, where women not only raise families, they have jobs, and they even wear pants.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, it's been more than 2 years since the Supreme Court rendered its Citizens United decision, and American politics is becoming more corrupt by the dollar. Election season is flooded with special-interest money, confirming the deep skepticism of an American public that is estranged from and fed up with its government. In the past 2 years alone, super PACs have raised approximately $181 million, an increase of more than 1,200 percent, in outside spending during a Presidential election. Our system allows for corporations and extremely wealthy individuals to influence elections without any accountability, and this must change. That's why I'm a cosponsor and strong supporter of the DISCLOSE 2012 Act, which would shine a light on the secret money in political campaigns. The DISCLOSE 2012 Act requires public reporting by super PACs, corporations, unions, and outside groups within 24 hours of making a campaign expenditure. It forces leaders of other corporations and other outside groups to stand by their campaign ads by appearing in them and stating that they approve this message. Madam Speaker, I urge Republican leadership to bring the DISCLOSE 2012 Act up for a vote. Until we get Big Money out of politics, we will never be able to responsibly address the major issues facing American families.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast the recorded votes for rollcalls 34 and 35. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' for these measures. H. Res. 537: On Agreeing to the Resolution, rollcall No. 34. H.R. 1162: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, rollcall No. 35.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, there's no question that our economy is recovering. The private sector has added jobs for 23 straight months, putting 3.7 million Americans workers back on the job. Last week, in my district, GE opened its first new manufacturing facility and the first new product line at Louisville's Appliance Park in more than 50 years. Because of our Recovery Act investments, 1,300 workers will be back on the job at Appliance Park, and hundreds of those jobs are coming back from China. When the private sector can rely on the Federal Government as a partner, jobs and economic growth follow, and that's exactly what we're seeing today in my district and across the country. We decided we are not going to surrender the lead in innovation to the Chinese and the rest of the world, and as a result, we are revitalizing American manufacturing. We are making it in America, but we can't stop now. Madam Speaker, as we begin to debate the Federal budget, we must continue to invest in American innovation and ingenuity, the way we have in Louisville and in so many other cities across the country.

Mr. YARMUTH

Mr. YARMUTH. You know, we've heard for many years now from the other side the notion that government is the source of all of our problems, government never does anything right, it ought to stop regulating and get out of the way of a very free and open society. Well, the authors of a new book called ``Gardens of Democracy'' have a compelling and undeniable point to make. They write: ``There is not a stable, prosperous society on Earth without activist government, extensive regulation, and high, progressive taxation. If less were always better, then the least regulated economies would be the most successful economies. The opposite is true. If minimalist government worked, Somalia would be rich, stable and secure, and Canada would be a hellhole; Afghanistan would be a coveted destination, and Denmark would be like a leper colony.'' Now, to be fair, the authors say that our government is often too slow to react, it has all the answers, and it needs to be more flexible and more effective. We all agree with that. What we need to do is find a way to create a government that is efficient, that sets the right direction for our country, and then lets the innovative spirit of this country take hold and find the answers to our problems.