John Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2480, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act. I want to begin by thanking Representative Moran from Virginia for introducing this bill and Representatives Rush, Waxman, Whitfield, and Barton for moving this bill through the committee process. H.R. 2480 is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that, with one exception, requires all articles of apparel containing fur to be labeled regardless of the cost of the garment. This legislation will make clear to consumers and retailers exactly which products contain fur and which do not. During committee consideration, one exception was added to these requirements. An amendment by Mr. Latta was accepted by voice vote to exempt from the labeling requirements those fur products that are sold by hunters and trappers out of their homes or at fairs or at other temporary spaces. This exemption is extremely limited. It applies only to fur sold by the individual who actually hunted or trapped the animal when the sale of such furs is not the primary source of income for that individual. The bill also directs the Federal Trade Commission to update the Fur Products Name Guide, which has been criticized as inaccurate and outdated. As indicated, this bill enjoys very broad support from Members on both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I want to, again, salute my colleagues for making this a bipartisan effort. I think there's a consensus of opinion that the more information that's available to the consumer, to the retailer, the better off we all are. I mean, in many respects that's the essence of a consumer protection initiative is to make sure that people who are purchasing these products actually have good information, truth in labeling at their fingertips. I did want to salute the efforts of the Humane Society of the United States because they have been very responsible and persistent advocates on these issues over many, many, many years. As a result of those efforts, Americans have been learning more and more about some of the unsavory practices--it was just referred to by my colleague--when it comes to the sale of these fur products and how they're manufactured and what the source of the fur is. And, as a result, consumers want to know more, rightly. They justifiably want to understand more about where those products come from and be in a position to support the many businesses who are actually doing the right thing and are engaged in good, positive, best practices when it comes to marketing these products that contain fur. And so I think that this bill that's been brought forward by my colleague, Mr. Moran, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act, is going to help to advance that goal. And again, I'm very pleased that it has the bipartisan support that was indicated. I did want to cite some of the information that was gleaned through a few investigations that were initiated by The Humane Society. They discovered that there were dozens of designers and retailers--Mr. Whitfield has referred to this--that were selling some of these fur- trimmed jackets as faux or raccoon or coyote, or they weren't labeled at all. And you could find these in many of the retailers whose names you know. And they looked at 38 jackets. They subjected them to the spectrometry test which allows you to look and see exactly what the source of it is. Many of them, as I say, that were identified as faux, of the 38 jackets that were looked at, every single garment was either unlabeled, contained a label that misidentified the animal, or was falsely advertised with this faux label. Three of the jackets advertised as fake fur, two of which had no label, were found to contain fur from domestic dogs. Now, this goes in contravention of legislation that's already on the books. But if you don't have that labeling imperative at work, then this kind of thing can slide through. Designers, retailers, and consumers, as a result of this, get put in a position where they can't have confidence that what they're getting-- whether it's faux fur or real, and if real, from what animal--is something that they can count on, especially, I might add, when it is a source from China, based on some of the investigations that have been done. So that's why this legislation is so critical. As a result of the very broad support it has, and based on its merits and the substance of it, I would urge my colleagues to support its passage today. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to Representative Sutton from Ohio, who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and sits on the subcommittee that had jurisdiction with respect to this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge the support of this bill from my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster is a terrible reminder of the inherent safety, environmental, and economic risks associated with offshore drilling. This tragedy claimed the lives of 11 people and released millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, forcing people out of work, devastating beaches and fisheries for years to come, and impacting our food supply. BP's so-called response plan to deal with such a disaster was a farce: it listed a wildlife expert that had been deceased since 2005 and said that sensitive biological resources in the Gulf included walruses, sea otters, sea lions and seals, none of which actually live there. BP also stated that it could handle a worst case oil discharge scenario 10 times the size of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. These glaring flaws in its response plan make it abundantly clear that BP did not take the permitting process seriously. There was virtually no thought or time put into developing these plans and certainly no accountability. Today I am introducing legislation to ensure that risk assessment and emergency response preparedness for offshore drilling are more than an exercise in pushing paper. My legislation would require the chief executive officer of each offshore drilling and production operation under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to annually certify (1) the demonstrated capability of the operation's exploration and production plans to respond immediately and effectively to the worst-case oil spill in real-world conditions; and (2) that each plan, to their knowledge, is an accurate and effective response to a worst-case oil spill in real-world conditions, under risk of personal civil penalties. Ever since the BP Deepwater Horizon well began spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, executives from BP have repeatedly excused their inability to seal the well by describing the difficult circumstances in which they are operating. I am willing to acknowledge that, because the well is 5,000 feet below the surface, effectively stopping the flow of oil is a technological challenge. But I believe these are all things that should have been considered before BP began drilling the well. And I believe that if company executives are accountable for the content of their proposals to address these safety concerns, one of two things will happen. Either they will ensure that they do have an effective and realistic response capability to an oil spill. Or they will not drill the well. This tragedy is a game-changing event. We must reevaluate our policy on offshore drilling emergency response preparedness and bring accountability to risk assessment and the planning process. This legislation would go a long way toward ensuring our offshore drilling operations have thoughtful, accurate, and useful response plans. Offshore drilling operations, no matter how technologically advanced, can never completely eliminate the risk of a major disaster but it is incumbent upon us to make sure these companies have a plan to respond when disaster does strike. I hope my colleagues will support this simple but overdue legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate what is now the 36th year since Turkey's invasion and occupation of the tiny island Republic of Cyprus. On this commemoration last year, I cautioned this chamber that Turkey's failure to honor democracy, human rights and the rule of law would accelerate Turkey's drift away from the West, on a course openly adverse to the interests of NATO, America and the European Union. Over the past year, Turkey's conduct has validated this concern. To many, this comes as a surprise. Yet, had we been honestly engaged with our NATO ally over the past three and half decades, we would have long ago recognized that the invasion and continued occupation of Cyprus is a symptom of Turkey's indifference to human rights, religious tolerance and democratic values. That indifference, which is engrained in Turkey's broader approach to world affairs, makes it an unreliable partner for the United States and a weak link in the NATO alliance. In the summer of 1974, NATO member Turkey invaded and occupied more than one-third of the island Republic of Cyprus. Coming at the height of the Cold War, and at a time of delicate relations between Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, and the NATO alliance, Turkey's invasion of Cyprus risked war with NATO member Greece and a resultant rupturing of the NATO alliance. Adding insult to injury, the weapons used by the Turkish military to invade Cyprus were those of its NATO benefactors, principally the United States. In 1975, the Congress imposed an arms embargo on Turkey for its offensive use of American weapons. Rather than fulfill its NATO obligations, or follow its legal obligations as demanded by Congress, Turkey retaliated by closing all American military installations on Turkish soil, and by severely restricting American access at two NATO bases. At that time, military installations in Turkey were deemed essential surveillance posts in the Cold War fight against the Soviet Union. Turkey refused to reopen these facilities until the U.S. lifted the arms embargo, signaling that its relationship with the United States was never more than a transactional one, rather than one rooted in a shared commitment to the rule of law, individual liberties, democracy, and collective Western security. July 20th marks 36 years that the Turkish military has occupied Cyprus. In that time, neither the Republic of Cyprus nor its people have directed any aggression towards Turkey. In stark contrast, Turkey maintains an active colonization program where it is illegally resettling some 180,000 Anatolian Turks into the homes and possessions of the 200,000 Greek Cypriots it evicted from the occupied territories. The Turkish military is also systematically eradicating the Hellenic and Christian heritage from the occupied territories. All but 5 of the 500 Greek Orthodox Churches in the occupied territories have been looted, desecrated, or destroyed. To no avail, the international community including the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice have all called on Turkey to honor its international obligations and cease and desist from these hostilities against the people of Cyprus. The Republic of Cyprus is a full-fledged member of the European Union. Turkey seeks that status as well, but as a NATO member illegally occupying European Union soil, Turkey put NATO and the EU at loggerheads. The result is that the EU and NATO are unable to cooperate in the consolidation of their economic and strategic interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey's ongoing occupation of Cyprus is compelling evidence that it has little interest in meeting the standards of individual liberties, human rights and religious tolerance shared by America and other democratic nations. Lacking the ties that bind, Turkey is apparently quite willing to jeopardize relations with its long-time allies. Witness its 2003 denial of the deployment of U.S. forces along the Northern Iraq border and its recent vote in the U.N. against Iran sanctions. The United States and its allies must call upon Turkey to abide by international law and meet its responsibilities as a dependable NATO partner. And on this, the 36th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Cyprus, the United States should demand an immediate withdrawal of the 45,000 Turkish soldiers now occupying northern Cyprus. Until that occurs, policymakers in the White House and in the Congress must press the issue in every interaction with their Turkish counterparts. In this way, the United States can work towards establishing a strong, enduring, and values based alliance with Turkey that will serve to bring justice to the people of Cyprus, strengthen NATO, and reinforce collective Western security.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the 36th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cypress. Turkey's invasion and continued occupation of this tiny island republic is a symptom of Turkey's indifference to human rights, religious tolerance, and democratic values. Today, Turkey continues to illegally resettle some 180,000 Anatolian Turks into the homes and possessions of the 200,000 Greek Cypriots evicted from the occupied territories. The Turkish military is also systematically eradicating Hellenic and Christian heritage, with all but five of the 500 Greek Orthodox Churches located there having been looted, desecrated or destroyed. On this, the 36th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Cypress, the United States should demand an immediate withdrawal of the 45,000 Turkish soldiers now occupying northern Cypress, and should continue to press this issue in every interaction with Turkish officials. This will promote a values-based alliance with Turkey that will serve to bring justice to the people of Cypress, strengthen NATO, and reinforce collective western security.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank him for his work in shepherding this through the process of bringing it to the House floor. Madam Speaker, I am delighted that we are going to be voting today on the Telework Improvements Act of 2010, a bill that I introduced some time ago with bipartisan cosponsorship. And I want to acknowledge Congresswoman Norton, who is here, Congressman Davis, Congressman Connolly, Jim Moran of Virginia, and other cosponsors. I do also want to salute the fact that we had bipartisan support for this from the outset--Congressman Wittman, Shelley Moore Capito and, of course, Frank Wolf, who has really been a leader on this issue from the get-go. He was working on telework before I even came to Congress and understood what a valuable contribution telework could make to our Federal workforce and its productivity. What this bill will do is expand the Federal telework policy, which was begun in a nascent way. There was just a survey done that indicated about 10 percent of the Federal workforce is now teleworking at least 1 day a week, but it can take that up to the next level by establishing a policy across our Federal agencies that promote telework and make it clear to employees how they can go about taking advantage of that opportunity. It would instruct the Office of Personnel Management to develop telework regulations, a uniform governmentwide telework policy for Federal employees. And that's important because, if you look at the different agencies, some of them have been very successful in pushing telework forward. Others have not been as attentive to it. What this is going to do is it's going to establish an expectation to cut across our Federal workforce and encourage this opportunity. Critical to that is to designate a telework managing officer within each agency who takes responsibility, who has accountability for making sure that the telework policy is being distributed broadly within that agency, is helping to evaluate it, make sure that it's working properly. There will be greater access provided, as a result of this bill, to telework training and education to more employees and supervisors. And the Office of Personnel Management is also going to make sure, in cooperation with the Government Accountability Office, that there's a periodic evaluation conducted so that we can see how this telework policy is advancing forward. So these are some of the key elements of the bill that is on the floor today. I'm appreciative that Congressman Issa recognizes the inherent value of pursuing telework. And as I said, we did have bipartisan support at every step along the way. Why is it important to do teleworking? I would say this is a win times five when you look at. First of all, it's going to help the Federal workforce recruit better out in the market. The private sector is doing this, and they're recruiting people, using this as an opportunity for more flexible work arrangements. The Federal workforce should be doing the same thing. It will help to improve productivity and morale among the workforce. Those agencies that have taken full advantage of teleworking have shown that productivity has been enhanced within their agency. And, frankly, it leads to more of a culture of looking at performance and delivery of important functions in the workplace, so that you're seeing that productivity rise, not just among those who are teleworking, but across an entire agency where teleworking is being implemented in a meaningful way. At one point in the evolution of this legislation, we actually were going to attach it to an energy bill because it will have the effect of reducing the carbon footprint of the Federal Government. People won't need to be in their cars as much going back and forth to work if they can take advantage of teleworking opportunities to some extent. So that's a third win here. A fourth win, very important, is the continuity of operations. We've seen situations where the Federal Government may be forced to shut down. If you've got telework in place, you can continue to run the operations of these agencies, even in that situation. And the best example of this we had this past winter was when we had a snowstorm that shut down the Federal Government, except 30 percent of the work force was able to engage in their operations.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. John ``Jack'' Saum who was recently honored by his peers within the trucking industry as the 2010 Dealer of the Year by the American Truck Dealers (ATD) and Heavy Duty Trucking. The award recognizes excellence in dealership performance, industry leadership, civic contributions and community service. Mr. Saum is Chairman of the Board of Beltway Truck Companies, LLC, which is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland in my Congressional district. For more than 40 years, Mr. Saum has been involved in the truck business. He held a series of management positions with International Harvester in the Northeast region of the country before joining Beltway International in 1984. Mr. Saum initially served as general manager at the Beltway dealership and assumed the role of dealer principal in 1997 when he purchased the dealership. Under his leadership, the dealership has grown exponentially from a single point location in Baltimore to seven locations that span eight Maryland counties, the city of Baltimore, five West Virginia counties, one Delaware county and the city of Wilmington. Mr. Saum is a strong supporter of green technology within the commercial truck industry. His innovative business approach is exemplified in his ``A New Truck is a Green Truck'' initiative which focuses on environmentally friendly truck technologies. With support from the National Automotive Dealers Association (NADA) and Navistar, Mr. Saum led efforts to educate public officials about the environmental and fuel efficiency advantages of new truck design improvements with a focus on new diesel-powered trucks, diesel-electric hybrid trucks, auxiliary power units (APUs) and retrofit programs. Since Jack Saum became chairperson, the Board of Beltway Truck Companies, LLC has been the winner of multiple awards from Navistar for dealership performance, financing, lease and rental and operations excellence. In fact, Mr. Saum has won a number of individual awards from Navistar for his work, culminating with the award we recognize today. Madam Speaker, I am honored to represent Mr. Jack Saum and his employees at Beltway Truck Companies in Baltimore and ask that you join me in congratulating him for this recent honor and for his efforts on behalf of his customers, his fellow business owners and all Marylanders. Once again, I offer my best wishes to him for continued success in the future.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I will support our troops in this supplemental but I will also continue to press for their withdrawal from Afghanistan and for a meaningful discussion of exactly how that can be accomplished in accordance with the timeline originally set by the President.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and pursuant to it will vote in strong support of the domestic funding portion of the supplemental appropriation, but in reluctant acceptance of the war funding, which appropriates some $37 billion to our efforts in Afghanistan, most of it going to the troop surge that President Obama announced in December of last year. Concern about the well-being of our troops makes its difficult to vote against supplemental war funding once the troops that funding is meant to support have already been deployed. While a ``no'' vote on the war supplemental has some appeal as a way of forcing reevaluation of our current strategy, denying those funds could jeopardize the safety of our troops. For me, that leaves little real choice in the matter. However, that does not mean I am ready to acquiesce in a policy that appears increasingly open-ended, while its cost in lives and resources continues to mount. I am highly skeptical that an extra year and 30,000 additional troops will bring stability and effective governance in a country that for 30 years has seen nothing but conflict and for centuries has been known as the graveyard of empires. It is hard to imagine that the Karzai government will rid itself of corruption and become a reliable partner or that the Afghan forces will acquire a sustainable level of competency any time soon. The elusive ``turning point'' our policy seeks to achieve seems ever farther away. Through it all, wear and tear on our troops has been unrelenting. More than a thousand Americans have lost their lives in Afghanistan and 6,500 have been wounded in action. The toll of multiple tours and unconventional combat has placed terrible stress on our soldiers, resulting in a near epidemic of suicides among returning veterans. When the burdens on our troops is this heavy, our policymakers must bear a commensurate burden of proof to show that the sacrifice is in our national interest and that the mission is meeting with success. In my view, this burden of proof is not being met. For that reason, I believe we should stick to the plan of bringing our troops home and beginning that withdrawal no later than July of 2011. That is why I will support the McGovern-Obey amendment that reaffirms the President's timeline for withdrawal. The McGovern-Obey amendment requires the President to submit a detailed plan for the safe, orderly, and expeditious redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, including a timeline for completion of that redeployment. I am determined to fight terrorism. I wish I were confident that our current strategy in Afghanistan was having the net effect of advancing that goal. But I am not. I worry instead that as this 9-year war drags on and on, it is bogging us down, sapping our strength, and distracting us from other, more effective strategies for combating the terrorist threat in that region and elsewhere in the world.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure and honor to welcome Reverend Byron Brought to Congress this morning. Reverend Brought is retiring this month after serving the Maryland community for more than 40 years as a spiritual leader and mentor. Since 1992, Reverend Brought has served as Senior Pastor at Calvary United Methodist Church in Annapolis, Maryland. Prior to his appointment at Calvary, he presided over several United Methodist ministries in the Baltimore-Washington Conference. His many accomplishments include serving on various community councils, including terms as President of the Baltimore-Washington Conference Board of Pensions and the Council on Finance and Administration. Reverend Brought is the proud husband of Mary Kay, father to two children, and grandfather to soon to be four grandchildren. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join with me in congratulating Reverend Brought on a career of dedication and service.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Ron Gettelfinger who is retiring from his role as president of the United Auto Workers after years of outstanding service. Mr. Gettelfinger has spent his entire career in the auto industry. His union involvement began in 1964 with his first job at Ford's truck plant in Louisville, Kentucky as a line repairman. There he was elected committee member, bargaining chair and president for the plant. After excelling in these roles he soon moved on to be elected president of his local union in 1984. With diligence, hard work and constant concern for his fellow worker, Mr. Gettelfinger quickly rose through the union ranks, serving 6 years as director of UAW region 3 until his election as the UAW Vice President in 1998. Mr. Gettelfinger's career as UAW president began with his election in 2002, and was reconfirmed in 2006. At 65, Mr. Gettelfinger is retiring, following a longstanding union precedent that asks union presidents not run for reelection beyond this age. He will long be remembered for his dedication to his fellow workers, whom he warmly refers to as his ``brothers'' and ``sisters.'' We can only hope that future presidents will share his inspiring work ethic and thoughtful concern for those whom he was charged to represent. Mr. Speaker, I want to again offer congratulations to Mr. Ron Gettelfinger for his tenure as UAW president and to wish him the best of luck as he moves onward from his post.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to commend my colleague, Congressman Altmire, for introducing this resolution to designate the week beginning May 2 as National Physical Education and Sport Week. Today, the President is going to be launching at Bell Multicultural High School in Columbia Heights, here in the District of Columbia, the President's Council on Fitness, Sport, and Nutrition, which expands on the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, which has been in place since the Kennedy administration, the Eisenhower administration. It brings the kind of focus to physical fitness and sports and nutrition that Congressman Altmire has signaled with this resolution. Again, I commend him for bringing that attention to this issue, and I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, literacy is a fundamental building block for individuals to thrive in our society and in a constantly changing world. Literacy can have an impact on an individual's ability to be self-sufficient, and it is essential in overcoming social and economic barriers. Low literacy skills, on the other hand, are associated with poor health, lower income levels, and social exclusion. Braille is an internationally recognized method of reading and writing for the blind community and is the key to literacy. It provides the blind community with the tools they need to succeed and to improve their lives. Yet braille literacy has declined to 10 percent in the United States compared to 50 percent in the 1960s. House Resolution 1034, which I was proud to introduce and which has cosponsorship among both Republicans and Democrats, recognizes the importance of braille for success and adult independence. Studies show that braille literacy leads to higher educational levels, better employment, and increased financial independence. While 70 percent of blind adults face unemployment, 85 percent of those who are employed are able to read and write braille fluently. I am pleased to have worked with the National Federation of the Blind in developing this resolution that calls attention to the need for a renewed commitment to braille literacy. The National Federation of the Blind, which is the Nation's largest blind membership organization and is headquartered in my congressional district, helps blind persons achieve self-confidence and self-respect, and it acts as a vehicle for collective self-expression by the blind community. The NFB has been a champion of braille literacy over the years, and I would like to congratulate them on their efforts. Mr. Speaker, literacy provides individuals with basic life skills that can lead to access to higher educational opportunities and economic success. By promoting literacy within all communities, we can help our Nation and its citizens reach their full potential. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment, amendment number 47, I believe, in the queue, would bring standards of good government and good government practice to procurement across the Federal agencies. What it does, in fact, is it takes a set of standards that has been put in place already with respect to the Department of Defense as a result of the DOD authorization bill of 2008, as well as standards that were built into appropriations bills applying to other agencies over the last couple of years, and it makes it clear that those are going to be authorized standards going forward to apply to non-DOD agencies as well now as to DOD agencies. As many people know, over the last few years, the impulse to contract services out on the part of the Federal Government went too far. And in fact, studies have demonstrated that, for example, the Department of Defense's service contractor workforce grew from 732,000 in 2000 to 1.3 million in 2006, a huge increase. And this kind of phenomenon was not limited to the Department of Defense. We saw it in other agencies--the Department of Homeland Security and other places across the Federal workforce. Secretary Gates, recognizing that things have gone too far in this direction, is looking for a better balance and has already declared that DOD will examine this reliance on contractors and begin to bring more of a balance back into the equation. So what this amendment would do is take that same approach, those same standards and apply them across the board to non-DOD agencies. It includes a number of provisions. Very briefly, I will go over those. The first is it would close a loophole that allowed certain work performed by Federal employees to be contracted out without determining whether in fact that would result in any savings. Well, that's the kind of analysis that needs to be done. And so we would close that loophole. It would create a contractor inventory. Right now we don't really have a sense of which contracts are out there, what kind of outsourcing has been done. We need to get a handle on that, have an inventory, so we can make better decisions and informed judgements going forward. It would also seek to bring some analysis as to when it's appropriate to bring back in-house some of these functions and operations that have been outsourced according to very reasonable and rational standards. And the last thing it would do is improve oversight and transparency. It would prevent any agency from establishing arbitrary quotas or targets or numerical goals with respect to what should be outsourced or not. In other words, what this seeks to do is bring a rational analysis back to whether something should be outsourced or not outsourced. It doesn't try to tilt the presumption in one direction or another. It just says let's look at this on a careful basis and determine when it makes sense, when it can generate savings, when it's a good thing for the Federal Government to do, and when it may not be such a good thing to do. So I urge support of this amendment because I do believe it will bring commonsense good government provisions back into the mix and will make those permanent for all government agencies across the board. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. SARBANES. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. SARBANES. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lynch for yielding his time. I want to thank him for his support of this very important bill. Also, Congressman Gerry Connolly is going to speak, I believe, and he has been very supportive. We have bipartisan support on this bill. I think it is a commonsense approach, and I am delighted that we have it on the floor today. We have been working for some time to try to strengthen the telecommuting/telework policy across our Federal agencies, and this legislation will make sure that we have a good, strong policy in place. For starters, it's going to instruct the Office of Personnel Management to develop a uniform, governmentwide telework policy for Federal employees. We haven't had this in place before. We've had agencies that have pursued telework, some with great success, but we haven't had a uniform approach and emphasis on telework in all of our Federal agencies, and OPM will make sure that that happens. I want to say, as an aside, that John Berry, who is the new head of the Office of Personnel Management, is totally on board with this. He's really on the leading edge, and he's as excited as we are that this legislation is on the floor today. This is really about good government. There is information--in fact, the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service has released a study that indicates that within the next 5 years, approximately 550,000 Federal employees--which is almost 30 percent of the Federal workforce--is going to retire or leave government and we need the best and the brightest folks to come in and take their place. That's a responsibility that we have. We need to be competing in the workplace and in the market for the most talented people. One way that you do that is to show that you have flexible policies and that telework is part and parcel of the Federal workplace. Now, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the Defense Information Systems Agency, and some other agencies have really led the way. They have made this state of the art within their workplace, telework, and they're showing what can be done at the highest levels. We believe other agencies can come to the table and demonstrate the same thing. It is going to improve productivity. In those agencies where this has been implemented well and across the board, you are seeing productivity go up, not just among the people that are teleworking, but across the entire workforce, because it is a cultural shift in terms of how performance is measured. All of my colleagues have already mentioned the continuity of operations dimension of this, which was illustrated in ways that could hardly have been more compelling by the snowstorms that we experienced in February. Because there was telework within some of the Federal agencies, they were able to save a tremendous amount of money in terms of lost productivity. So we're very excited about this opportunity. Just some other details of the legislation I would like to mention before I yield back: The appointment of a telework managing officer within each agency to be the point person, to be the resource to make sure that the policy is in front of the employees at that agency so they understand what kind of opportunities are available to them; Training and education for both supervisors and employees; Governmentwide evaluation on a periodic basis. The Government Accountability Office will be part of that to make sure that we are moving towards these telework compliance goals that are being set forth. So we're excited about this opportunity, we look forward to our Federal agencies embracing this new policy and taking telework to the next level.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Instructional Leadership Act of 2010, which will strengthen schools by helping principals to become instructional leaders. With the passage of No Child Left Behind, NCLB, school principals often find themselves with greater responsibilities. They are accountable for student achievement and the broader goals of NCLB but they lack the appropriate training and resources needed to accomplish these goals. It is time to bring equal attention to developing programs that train principals on the best practices to guide teaching and learning in schools. The Instructional Leadership Act of 2010 provides grants to State and local educational agencies to drive gains in academic achievement for all children by: (1) Creating innovative programs and sites to train principals in instructional leadership skills including developing a school vision, staff development, and effective instructional practices; (2) Developing pilot programs to evaluate the incorporation of standards of instructional leadership into State principal certifications; and (3) Establishing state-of-the-art principal induction programs that provide mentoring and on-the-job training for new principals. This legislation is strongly supported by the National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP. It represents a necessary first step towards developing the next generation of school leaders who are committed to, and effective in, increasing student achievement. I urge support for this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for official U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide. Notable scholars and historians who recognize the Armenian genocide include the International Association of Genocide Scholars and the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity whose findings are supported by 53 Nobel Laureates. Yet, in the face of all the evidence, Turkey presses on, exporting a legacy of genocide denial, a legacy it continues to enforce within its own borders. Many of my colleagues express sympathy for the genocide victims but are hesitant to vote for recognition. Turkey's relentless lobbying campaign, which threatens retaliation should the U.S. recognize this historical reality, has had its intended effect. Some Members of Congress worry that recognition will cause irreparable harm to U.S.- Turkish relations and therefore undermine the United States' strategic interests. ``It's just not a good time'' is a common refrain. That excuse is always available, but it is a wholly inadequate excuse. For the sake of its core values and in true furtherance of its strategic interests, the United States must take a deep breath, look its ally, Turkey, in the eye and recognize this tragic episode of the modern era to be an unambiguous fact of history.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I appreciate him for convening this discussion this evening on jobs in general. And I would like to focus, as you mentioned, on green jobs in particular. You mentioned the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which, when you look at it, was really the first major down payment and investment that we've had in this country really ever in this kind of green technology, which is going to jump, I believe, over time will jump the economy forward in a significant way. One of the things all of the economists agree on is we're in a transitional phase. There are industries and jobs that once existed in plenty that are now going to be transitioned to a new place, and we have to create new economic frontiers and new space to create these new jobs. There is no better place to do that than with a green economy. One of the things that excites me the most, I must tell you, is that I believe if we can get a new energy framework in place--and we certainly made our efforts here in the House to do that with the American Clean Energy and Security Act and other efforts that have been undertaken--if we create a new energy framework, new rules of the road for what investments in clean technology can mean, then what you're going to see is businesses all across this country, investors, are going to start putting their investments into clean technology. Right now they are kind of hanging back a little bit because they don't know what the rules of the road are yet. They don't know how to measure that investment in a new technology in a renewable energy source, for example, against traditional investments. If we can get a framework in place for them, I think they will come and they will fill that space. So you will see entrepreneurs and businesspeople jumping into that space and creating these new clean technologies. The other thing you will see--and all of this will result in job creation. The other thing you will see is ordinary citizens stepping into that space. One of the things I perceive, there is a growing trend among our citizenry to become stakeholders in this green revolution, to take personal ownership of cleaning up the environment and thinking of things that they can do right at the household level, right there in their own homes, right there in their own neighborhoods. One particular effort that I am very interested in, and I have introduced legislation to this effect, has to do with these programs called PACE programs. PACE is an acronym for Property Assessed Clean Energy program. What these are is a local municipality will decide to borrow funds and make those available to local homeowners so that those homeowners can borrow that money and then invest it in retrofitting their homes to make them more energy efficient. And there is actually legislation moving through the Congress right now that would create two new categories--Silver Star and Gold Star, under a Home Star umbrella-- of energy efficiency to try to encourage people to achieve these high standards of green technology and energy efficiency in their own homes. What the PACE programs do is make these loans available to a homeowner who can then take that, invest it in upgrading and retrofitting, you know, their HVAC system or whatever it may be, and then the repayment on that becomes part of the property tax payment over time, so it runs with the house. Then the next homeowner that comes in takes that obligation and continues to pay on the property tax. The bill that I have introduced attempts, as many other initiatives do, to try to facilitate this more by making the bonds that can be issued by municipalities tax free. That makes them more attractive to investors, who will then begin to provide the capital for this kind of retrofitting, and they can turn around and make it available to homeowners. So it's a win/win.

Mr. SARBANES. Well, we are gathering up cosponsorship for the bill. And I appreciate your comments, because this is designed to kind of jump this movement forward. There are communities in the municipalities across the country that have begun to put these PACE programs in place. Annapolis, Maryland, which I represent, is another one. And what we are trying to do is create a more inviting environment for these sorts of programs. This is just one example of how we can partner with good legislation and good initiatives and good leverage coming from the legislation here. We can partner with the citizenry out there in our communities to do the right thing and to get back to the jobs priority. If we begin to get homeowners making these kinds of changes, that is going to have a tremendous positive impact on all of those businesses, a lot of them small businesses who are in a position to do this kind of retrofit.

Mr. SARBANES. Let me give you another example, and I appreciate again your comments, because I think they are right on the mark. Let me give you another example of where the ordinary citizen can take ownership of the problem, can really become part of the solution to these issues and these challenges that we have. I represent a lot of the area that, you know, thinks every day when we get up about the Chesapeake Bay, which is a national treasure. In fact, I think there are 41 or 42 Members of Congress who have districts that include tributaries that flow into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. So there are a lot of folks who have a stake in the health of the Chesapeake Bay. One of the things we are wrestling with is storm water runoff. You know, every time you see it rain, on the one hand you know it's making the flowers grow, and on the other hand you know that it's sweeping up a lot of oils and other toxins and putting those into the Chesapeake Bay, because we can do better in terms of the way we collect and disburse that rainwater so that it doesn't have such a negative impact on the bay. I just did want to mention, one of our colleagues, Donna Edwards, Congresswoman Donna Edwards from Maryland, has introduced something called the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act. What this recognizes is that we need to really explore and develop technologies that can address this storm water runoff, and the term she is using for that is ``green infrastructure.'' This bill would create five centers of excellence across the country to begin to develop these technologies and help communities respond to this important challenge. Again, if you can help communities do this, ordinary citizens take ownership at that level of what's happening to the environment, in my case and Donna's, what's happening to the Chesapeake Bay, they become a critical part of the solution and they generate an interest in new technologies, which, in turn, generates jobs. It is all a part of this kind of leading edge, using the environment as the leading edge of a new economy that can produce new jobs for future generations, and that's what's so exciting about this.