John Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, March 25, to celebrate the 193rd anniversary of Greek independence. In Greek, we say ``Long Live Greece, Long Live Freedom''--Zito Ellada, Zito Eleftheria--in recalling the day that the Greek people threw off the yoke of the Ottoman Empire and established modern Greece as a free and independent nation. America's Founding Fathers drew upon the example of the ancient Greeks in forming our constitutional Republic, and modern Greece has been a staunch and dependable ally of the United States. Our relationship is based on shared democratic values and respect for individual freedom. The spirit that guided the Greek people in securing their freedom nearly 200 years ago resides within them still. It is the reason I am confident that Greece will overcome the economic and humanitarian crisis that it faces today. The United States must and will stand as a strong partner in Greece's efforts to regain its footing, to take full advantage of new opportunities that are emerging in the eastern Mediterranean, and to move forward as a vital economic and cultural resource for a critical region of the world. Knowing that America and Greece will stand together allows us to proclaim that both democracies will continue to live in freedom. Long Live Greece, Long Live America, Long Live Freedom--Zito Ellada, Zito Ameriki, Zito Eleftheria.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Chamber this evening. I want to talk about the topic of money in politics, which is something I think Americans across the country are increasingly anxious about because it really jeopardizes the voice they should have in their politics, in their democracy in their own government. Yesterday, there was a special election in Florida's 13th Congressional District, and the results of that election will get commented on at length in the coming days. People will try to make forecasts about what it means for the 2014 election cycle. Generally, they will analyze it. They will look at the data and they will prognosticate as to what the implications of it are going forward. A lot of that commentary will miss what I think is the most sinister aspect of the election yesterday that was held in Florida, and that is the tremendous amount of money, the tremendous amount of money that poured into that election, not from ordinary, everyday citizens, not from the people who really have a stake in the outcome. They were the ones asked to go to the polls, but the money that poured in there that bought advertisements, to the tune of about $12.7 million, almost $13 million spent on that campaign, about 30 percent of it was donated to the candidates themselves. So 30 percent of that $13 million was donated to the candidates themselves. The rest of the money came from outside sources--party committees, super PACs, anonymous donors, the ones who have been flooding the airwaves in the last couple of election cycles with negative advertising. That is where the great majority of the money that came into that special election yesterday was sourced, and that, I think, is a harbinger of things to come. If you look back at the 2010 cycle, you look at the 2012 election cycle, both at the congressional level and at the Presidential level, tremendous amounts of money pouring into campaigns and into elections, much of it coming from sources that don't identify themselves, secret money, these big super PACs who weigh in and try to determine the outcome of elections. Where does that leave the everyday citizen? Where does that leave the person out there who is sitting at their kitchen table, who is watching their television and is seeing all of these negative TV commercials pouring in? Where does that leave them in terms of their feeling about whether they have a voice in the process? I talk to my constituents, I listen to the way they feel about the current system of funding campaigns, and there is an increasing sense of disillusionment out there, deep cynicism that election outcomes are determined by Big Money and special interests and that the voices and opinions and priorities and concerns of everyday citizens are being cast aside. That is the legacy of the influence of Big Money and special interests on our politics today. So yesterday's election in the 13th District of Florida put a fine point on it. It demonstrated how much money can go into one special election. It was historic, $13 million being spent. More importantly, it is a lesson as to what we are looking at down the road. This idea that if you have got a big wallet you get an extra voice in our democracy, that somehow your opinion and your ideas count more because of the size of your wallet and your ability to throw millions of dollars into campaigns, well, that is not what a democracy is about; that is plutocracy. That is a government and a system that is dominated by Big Money and special interests and leaves the voices of everyday citizens behind so that they start asking themselves: Does my voice matter? Can I have an impact? Do my ideas count? If I am only able to write a check for $25 to a candidate who I think will do the right thing for me, can that $25 check compete against a $1 million check that some big donor can write to fund a Super PAC? This is why people across the country, it is not the only reason, but it is one of the main reasons why people across the country are so disaffected with Washington and Congress and government, because they feel like their voice is being drowned out by the big-moneyed interests out there. Mr. Speaker, we have to do something about this because if we are going to restore the confidence and trust of Americans across this country, they need to believe again that their voice matters. They need to believe that when they are trying to understand the issues in an election and follow the debate and become informed, that that information will come to them from responsible sources, not from these shadowy hidden secret donors out there that have found a way to dominate the airwaves. So that special election yesterday I think was a warning to us all that this trend towards Big Money and special interests weighing in to what ought to be a democratic process that is owned and invested in by everyday citizens, that that trend is continuing and it is worsening. At the end of that path lies deep, deep cynicism on the part of the American people. You can feel it; you can almost touch it when you go out into your district and you talk to your constituents who are angry and frustrated and want to see this place respond to their concerns and to their needs. So what can we do about this? I said a moment ago that we have got to do something soon; we have to address this cynicism that people are feeling, or they are not going to trust us at all. They are not going to believe that we can deliver for them in the people's House. This is the House of Representatives. It has the name the ``people's House.'' We run every 2 years. We are as close to the people as elected representatives can be. They want to see that we are listening to them. Right now--I said this last week--in some ways, when it comes to the relevance of this body to the average American out there, we are hanging on by a thread. We are hanging on by a thread because, increasingly, they think that we answer to Big Money and special interests, and we stop listening to the average person out there. So we need to do something about this. We need to fix this. We need to recognize that there is a problem, and we need to take meaningful steps to address it. That is why, Mr. Speaker, about a month ago, joined by over 125 original cosponsors, I was proud to introduce something called the Government by the People Act, which is an effort to create a new way of funding campaigns that puts everyday citizens back at the center of the equation. It says: no longer are we going to seed the financing and funding of campaigns to Big Money and special interests. We are going to come up with another way of doing it, a way that puts everyday citizens in a place of owning their democracy again, of feeling like they have a voice. Already within the last month, we have seen, across this country, more than 400,000 people who have become citizen cosponsors of the Government By the People Act because they are desperate to see a change which gives them their voice back at a time when they feel--as those residents of the 13th District in Florida felt over the last few weeks--that their voice isn't the one that matters; it is the voice of Big Money and special interests and the super-PACs that seems to carry the day. So the Government by the People Act would encourage people to participate in the funding of campaigns, small donors who would be assisted by a tax credit--a refundable tax credit of $25, to make it easier for them to participate on the funding side of campaigns. It would bring matching dollars from a freedom from influence matching fund that would come in behind those small donations and amplify them and lift them up, so that candidates would begin to pay attention to everyday citizens for the funding of their campaigns and not be so dependent on Big Money and special interests. That is the promise of reform that is embodied in the Government by the People Act. We even provide that candidates who are true grassroots candidates who go out there and make the case to their constituents and earn the support of their constituents in these small donations, that those candidates, when they get into the final days of a campaign in an election, if a super-PAC starts to come at them and try to wipe them off the field--off the playing field, there is some additional resources that can help them stay in the game, can keep their voice in the mix, so they can get to Election Day. I believe that, under those circumstances, many of those candidates who turn to their own constituents, who turn to small donors, who turn to everyday citizens to fund their campaigns can be competitive and can win, even in the face of these super-PACs and the big money that is pouring into campaigns. So this is real reform, Mr. Speaker. I was very pleased, as I said, that we had a number of original cosponsors who joined us when we introduced the bill about a month ago. One of them, who has been listening as carefully as anybody out there, to what everyday citizens are saying about this and joined us as a cosponsor on the bill and can really speak to this, I believe, from the heart, is my colleague Alan Lowenthal from California. I would be happy to yield some time to him now.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman. I might ask him one question because my sense is that, if you have a system like this in place, not only will you empower everyday citizens to feel like their voice truly does count--and that would increase participation--you would have people, I think, coming back into the political town square who have now fled the town square because they are cynical and disillusioned. But my sense is it would also create more access for candidates who, right now, are shut out of the process because they may not be in a position to raise the big dollars that you have to raise these days to run a race. There is a lot of good people out there who would like to try to run for Congress, perhaps, but they don't know a lot of people who have a lot of money; but if there was a system that rewarded small donations to their campaign and provided public matching funds coming in behind that, they might be able to run, and they might be able to be competitive. I wonder if you have some thoughts about that.

Mr. SARBANES. Again, I want to thank my colleague for his support of this reform effort, for joining us as an original cosponsor of the Government by the People Act. We think there is real momentum here. We have 140 Members of this body now that have joined as cosponsors; but there is something else happening, which is exciting, and I think offers some new opportunities for this kind of legislation. We have had these efforts in the past, and some of them have gotten attraction you would like to see; others have not. But there is something new happening. There are organizations-- national organizations across this country who are forming a coalition. This consists of many of the good government groups and reform groups that have been in this space for a long time. But there are other people coming to this issue. There are other people who are joining the fight to push back on the influence of Big Money and special interests in our politics and in our government. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, civil rights organizations like the NAACP, and labor organizations are getting behind this effort because they understand that the change they want to see--protecting the environment, making sure that our civil rights laws are being enforced--too often is being thwarted by the influence of Big Money, so they have adopted this issue as a priority for their organizations. They are joining this coalition. This is not just about the influence of Big Money on the outcome of elections. Oftentimes, that is where the focus gets placed. This is also the effect that Big Money has when it comes to governing because the reality of it is that, if you have an institution that becomes increasingly dependent on Big Money and special interests, then when it comes time to vote on important policy matters, it is just human nature that the institution will tend to lean in the direction of where that money comes from and lean away from everyday citizens. The promise of this legislation is that, if everyday citizens and matching funds become the source of powering campaigns, then when the candidates who are elected get here to Washington, the only people they will owe are those everyday folks who helped to power their campaigns. They will have an independence that will allow them when they go to make policy to really think about the issues that are at stake. The fact of the matter is the tremendous amount of money that pours into this place from PACs and other special interests can gum up the system so that it doesn't work. I would be interested in my colleague's observations on a couple of quotations of former Members of Congress. These are very interesting. I am going to read a quotation from former Senator Bob Dole, Republican minority leader, who said in 1982: When these political action committees give money, they expect something in return other than good government. It is making it much more difficult to legislate. We may reach a point where, if everybody is buying something with PAC money, we can't get anything done. That was Republican Minority Leader Bob Dole in 1982 before the trend had gotten to the point where it is now. I would be interested in my colleague's observations just on how money comes in and how it can actually begin to influence the way policy gets made here in Washington.

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate it, and I will follow up on what you just said. There is another quote that I would love to read from Senator Warren Rudman, a Republican from New Hampshire, who was a force here on Capitol Hill when he served. He said: Money affects whom Senators and House Members see, whom they spend their time with, what input they get; and make no mistake about it, the money affects outcomes as well. This is exactly what you just said. You can understand why everyday Americans are getting so fed up. I went and hired a film crew. I decided I was going to go interview some people in my district at one of the local fairs. I just wanted to get their views on this issue. So I went out. I spent 2 hours and stood in the central artery of this festival. I said: I am Congressman Sarbanes. I want to just ask you two questions. The first question is: What do you think of Congress? They said: Do you really want to know? I said: I wouldn't be here otherwise. They told me what they thought about Congress, and you know what they think about Congress. All you have to do is look at the latest survey, which shows that our approval rating is hovering around 10 or 12 percent. You can't run a country if the institutions that are supposed to be the instruments of democracy are held in such low esteem. The second question I asked them was: What do you think about the influence of Big Money on our politics? What was amazing--these were Republicans, Democrats, Independents--is that it was as though they had gotten together ahead of time and had scripted their answers, because they were all the same: the fix is in; the Big Money crowd runs things in Washington; my voice can't be heard; my voice doesn't matter. This is the way people feel when you actually ask them to talk about this issue, so we have to do something about this. The good news is that we have a bill that we have worked on really well. We have gotten a lot of people from not just here in the Chamber, who are people who are sensitive to this, but from people out there in the country who care about this issue. We have crafted something that, I think, passes the test of addressing in a meaningful way the cynicism and anger that people feel, this desire to get their government back, to get their voice back. They should know that there are people here who are determined to make this kind of change with the help and support and momentum and advocacy that can come from people--everyday citizens--around the country. I am very pleased that we are joined as well this evening with another person who was an original cosponsor of the Government by the People Act. He is relatively new to Congress but not new to a commitment and a passion around this issue. One of the first conversations we had was about: How do you reach out to everyday citizens and make them feel that they are really part of the process? that their voices really can be heard? It is a real pleasure to yield to my colleague from Texas, Beto O'Rourke.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank my colleague. Before we wrap up, I want to ask him and my colleague from California as well to comment on the kind of response they are getting as they talk to their constituents about this kind of reform. We are all very familiar with the cynicism and frustration. We encounter that on a daily basis. Sometimes it is so deep that it can be hard to get the attention of people to say to them, We hear you. We understand the frustration. We are trying to do something about it. I have begun to find that as I talk to people about the Government by the People Act, about this idea of a My Voice tax credit that would help them make a small contribution to support a good candidate that they want to see be competitive and successful, when I talk to them about the Freedom From Influence Matching Fund, think about that. Right now this institution is largely shackled by dependence and influence of Big Money. The Freedom From Influence Matching Fund comes in behind those small donations and makes it possible for a candidate to run their campaign by turning to everyday citizens. So as I talk to people about that and our ability to begin pushing back on super PACs, I am encountering some hope out there. People are skeptical. They have a right to be. I would rather have them be skeptical than cynical. I would rather have them have some hope and be ready to get out there and fight for this reform because I think we can make a difference. I would be curious to hear from my colleagues because I am starting to feel that. I am seeing a positive, cautious response that this can really make a difference as we move forward in elections and governing. I would be curious to hear, Alan, what is happening in your district as you talk about it.

Mr. SARBANES. I want to thank my colleagues for joining me here this evening to talk about this critical issue of the influence Big Money and special interests on our politics and the way we govern here. Professor Lessig has gotten a good shout out--and he deserves it-- because he has really studied the effect of money on this institution. There is a path to reform, and that is what the Government by the People Act is. I will close by sort of capturing this as a matter of voter empowerment. In this country we view as sacrosanct the right to vote. We do everything we can--or we should do everything we can--and we even have legislation in front of us to make sure that we are preserving people's access to the ballot box, to the voting booth because the franchise is the most important thing in a democracy. It is the foundation of what American democracy is all about--protecting that franchise and making sure that people have that franchise. If people go into the voting booth and they pull the lever and they exercise their franchise, and the day the person they send to Washington arrives and has to start representing Big Money and special interests, then what happens to the franchise? What happens to the voice of the person who went in there and pulled that lever? So the journey of empowerment, getting to the ballot box is just part of it. You have to protect that franchise so that when the candidate gets there, they can keep representing the interests of the people that voted to send them to Washington. That is what the Government by the People Act is all about, because if you power your campaign with funds from small donors and a Freedom From Influence Matching Fund, when it comes time to cast your vote, the only people you are answering to are those citizens that you represent. That is the promise of the Government by the People Act--to create a government that is truly of, by, and for the people. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES

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

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of money and politics. I address it knowing that many of my constituents and many Americans across the country are in a pretty bad mood about Washington, about politics as usual, about Congress. They are angry because they feel like their voice can't be heard. They are frustrated because they feel like somebody else writes the rules, somebody else makes the policy, and their opinions on issues don't matter. A big part of the reason for that frustration and that anger is they look out and they see these super-PACs and other Big Money campaign donors and PACs and special interests pouring money into Washington, pouring money into our political system. They feel like those are the folks that call the shots here in Washington, that when it comes time for us to make public policy, too often the institution of Congress leans in the direction of the Big Money and the special interests and away from the priorities and the needs and the concerns and the demands of everyday citizens. People are pretty smart. Americans are pretty smart. If they are feeling this way, there is probably a good reason for it. When you do the research, when you track the numbers, when you look at the amount of money that is pouring in here, it is no wonder that Americans have become cynical and angry and fed up and disillusioned. It is no wonder that the favorability rating--the approval rating of this institution is as low as it is. Let's look at some of those numbers. In the 2012 election cycle, Big Energy--the big energy industry poured $140 million into Congressional campaigns. That is in one election cycle. They spent another $380 million on lobbying expenditures here in the city of Washington, here on Capitol Hill. Wall Street, they were at the top of the list. Again, in one election cycle, in the 2012 election cycle, the financial industry contributed $660 million to Congressional campaigns and spent another $490 million--almost a half a billion dollars--on lobbying up here on Capitol Hill. Sometimes, we ask ourselves--and I know my constituents ask me, and I know Americans raise this from time to time--how is it the case that an industry like the oil and gas industry in 2011 posted profits--the top five oil and gas companies posted profits of $132 billion? How is it that an industry like that continues to get taxpayer subsidies every year to the tune of $5 billion? How are they able to preserve that loophole when they are making all those profits and they don't need that taxpayer subsidy? How does that come to pass? Well, I just read you the numbers. If you are pouring $140 million into campaigns and you are spending another $380 million on lobbying, you can keep those loopholes in place. Why can't we close some of these loopholes that Wall Street and the financial industry enjoys? The same answer applies. Look at how much influence is coming from the money that pours in from those industries. When Americans feel in their gut that somehow their voice isn't being heard and it is the interests of Big Money that rules the roost around here, there is a factual basis for that, and it is something that we need to address. Whatever the priority is that Americans care about--whether it is jobs and the budget, whether it is health care and education, whether it is protecting our environment, whether it is reining in the influence of Wall Street and making sure that important regulations are in place--whatever the priority is that Americans want to see, the fact of the matter is that Big Money gets in the way of those priorities. It pours into campaigns; it pours into lobbying shops; and it stops often coming out of the gate these priorities that everyday Americans put at the top of their lists. It is no wonder that so many Americans are fed up. In fact, when you talk to them, when you get them to start talking about how they really feel, the fact of the matter is that many are downright disgusted by the influence that Big Money has on our politics and on our government. We have got figure out what to do about this. If we want to reclaim some of the trust of the American people, if we want Americans to have confidence that their government is actually working for them, we have got to address this problem. The first step to any recovery is to recognize the problem, and the fact of the matter is that the institution of Congress is too dependent upon Big Money and special interests. As a result, when it comes time to make public policy, it leans away from the public's interest and in the direction of the special interests. So what can we do? A month ago, joined by 128 original cosponsors, I introduced the Government by the People Act. This is a first step. This will not cure all of the ills that bedevil Congress and Washington, and it is not waving a magic wand, but it is an important first step in Americans' being able to say: We want to take our government back from the special interests and Big Money. We want our government to work for us. The Government by the People Act is premised on the idea that we have to put ordinary Americans--everyday citizens--at the center of the funding of campaigns and take that away from the PACs and the special interests and the Big Money campaign donors. The fact that we had so many cosponsors on this bill at the point of introduction, I think, shows that Members of this institution are hearing from their constituents and understand the anger and frustration that is out there and recognize that they need to do something about it. Let me tell you about the Government by the People Act because it is really designed to make sure that the voices of everyday citizens are as powerful as the voices of the Big Money campaign donors. The first thing it does is to provide a $25 tax credit, what we are calling the My Voice Tax Credit--a $25 refundable tax credit--to any American who makes a contribution to a congressional campaign in both of the 2 years of the election cycle. Now, why did we do that? If you look at the numbers right now, you will see that a very small percentage of Americans actually participates in the funding of campaigns. The funding is dominated by a small group that tends to be of the more wealthy citizens in society, and ordinary Americans out there are not getting into the role of helping to power campaigns on the funding side. We want to encourage them to do that. We want to say to those citizens who want to support a good candidate who is turning to them and listening to their concerns: If you are willing to put $15 or $20 or $25 behind that candidate who stands for the right thing, we will help you do that. We will provide this tax credit to make it a little bit easier for you to step up and be a part of the solution. So the My Voice Tax Credit does exactly that. It gives a voice back to everyday citizens who feel right now like their voices can't be heard, like they are not empowered to participate in the system, to participate in the solution. That is why we created the My Voice Tax Credit, and that is the first important element of the Government by the People Act. The second is that we want to make sure that the voice of the everyday citizen can be loud enough to compete with the big money out there, so we created something called the Freedom From Influence Matching Fund. This would provide matching dollars that would come in behind those grassroots donations and boost them up--amplify the voice of the grassroots--so that now those everyday citizens can get the attention of candidates or of Members of Congress who might otherwise be inclined to go spend their time on K Street or on raising money from Big Money campaign donors. Now they have an incentive to go do a house party back in their districts and raise small donations, knowing that those matching funds will come in behind it, and they will be able to raise sufficient dollars to run competitive campaigns. So we combine those two elements to try to change the way campaigns are funded--the My Voice Tax Credit to promote those small donations, those grassroots donations, and the Freedom From Influence Matching Funds to come in behind it and amplify it so the voices of everyday people can actually be heard, can actually compete with the megaphone that Big Money has and special interests have. That is what the Government by the People Act is designed to do--to empower everyday citizens to really have a voice again in their own democracy. The third piece is just as critical. Over the last two election cycles, Americans have seen the spending by super-PACs and by outside groups go through the roof, and they have been turned off by it. They know that there are good candidates who run for office who make a strong case on issues that matter to the public but that they get into those last 60 days--the home stretch of a campaign--and suddenly a super-PAC comes in and pours money into negative advertising, and before you know it that candidate's voice is wiped off the playing field. So we said that, in that home stretch--in those 60 days--we wanted to make sure, of a candidate who chooses to participate in this system, who chooses to reach out to everyday citizens and lift their voices up, that that candidate's own voice would be able to stay in the mix, because that candidate's voice represents the voices of thousands of small donors and other supporters who have stepped up behind him. So, in the last 60 days, candidates who choose to participate in this system would get the benefit of some additional dollars to help them stay in the game, to help keep their voices in the mix, up to Election Day. There is evidence, Mr. Speaker, to show that, of candidates who work hard to reach out and build relationships with their constituents, if they can get enough dollars in that final stage to stay in the game--to keep their voices there, to keep representing the interests of everyday citizens--then even if a super-PAC or some outside group comes in and throws a lot of money at them, they can still prevail. That is the way it ought to be. Candidates who are doing the right thing--Members of Congress who are trying to serve their constituents and lift up the voices of their constituents--ought to be able to survive the process where some outside group is coming in and trying to wipe them off the face of the map. So those are the three pieces of the Government by the People Act-- the My Voice Tax Credit to encourage and help everyday citizens participate on the funding side of campaigns, a Freedom From Influence Matching Fund that will come in behind that and provide matching dollars to amplify the voices of the grassroots and everyday citizens, and then some extra dollars in that final stretch for participating candidates who suddenly face an attack from a super-PAC or from some other outside group so that their voices and the voices of the people they represent, who have invested in them, can still be heard. I have talked about why this is so important in terms of changing the perception that Americans have of Washington and Congress, the notion that if everyday citizens feel that Members of Congress can continue to represent them because they are the ones who powered their campaigns instead of the special interests and Big Money being the ones to underwrite their campaigns that that can begin to restore some confidence. It won't change it overnight--it won't cure all the ills of this place--but it will begin to restore some confidence on the part of everyday citizens that their voices can actually be heard here, that when the campaign is over and governing begins, this institution will continue to listen to them because they are the ones who helped to lift that candidate up on his shoulders. I want to come at it from another angle for a moment. If you have a system like this that allows a good, strong candidate who knows how to reach out and network in his district to be competitive, you will see a different kind of person coming to Washington. Right now, more than half of the people who serve in Congress are millionaires. That is not surprising because, to run for office, you need a lot of money, and you need to know a lot of people who have a lot of money--that is the reality--but if you have a system where small donors and matching funds can lift up a candidate and power his campaign, you will get people running for Congress and being competitive who in the past would never have had a chance. I was recently in Maine or in New Hampshire, and I sat on a panel with a legislator from Maine. In Maine, they have a system that helps candidates who reach out to the grassroots be able to assemble the funds to be competitive. This legislator said, but for that system, she would not be a member of the Maine State Legislature because she wouldn't have been able to raise the dollars she needed to run for office and represent the people in her district, but because a system like that existed, she is now in the Maine State Legislature. I believe that we would see people competing for Congress and succeeding and being elected who right now have no way to access this place, and those are the kinds of people who represent the broad American constituency. Another way to begin restoring people's faith in this institution is if they look here and they say: Do you know what? There is somebody who is a community activist in my district. There is somebody who volunteered at my church who decided to get into politics, who decided to put his name in the ring. Because there is a system for funding campaigns now that combines small donations with matching funds, that person was able to run and compete and be elected. I think that that will lift up many Americans and make them believe that their voices actually make a difference here, that their voices can be heard. I want to put this in another context as well. There are many things that we can do to try to address the influence of Big Money in our politics. We need more disclosure and transparency in terms of where these independent expenditures are coming from. I support the DISCLOSE Act, which is sponsored by my colleague, Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, because Americans deserve to know where this big money comes from and who is spending it so they can make a judgment about whether that is fair and whether the people to whom that money is going ought to be representing them here in Washington. We need that transparency and we need that disclosure. That is an important reform. It is important also, I believe, to try to address the decisions of this Supreme Court, in particular the Citizens United decision, which basically took the lid off of outside campaign spending and expenditures by these super-PACs and other independent groups, and has resulted in this flood of negative campaign commercials and advertising to come in in the final weeks and months of the campaign cycle. So we need to address that. There are proposals that have been introduced in this body for a constitutional amendment that would rein in the spending of these outside groups. I think we need to address that, too. Those are important measures that we need to undertake. I also think it is critically important that there be something that is part of the reform agenda that has to do with empowering everyday citizens. If you think about it, disclosure and putting limits on the spending of these outside groups and super PACs is about reining in the conduct and the behavior of the bad actors out there--the people who have kind of gone too far, but we also have to do something to empower and lift up the good actors--everyday citizens who just want to see their government do the right thing and who have commonsense solutions and want the people they elect to Congress to reflect that commonsense perspective. That is why we need the Government by the People Act. It would create a system that would empower everyday citizens. It would allow them to feel that their voice is being heard and that they are not just standing back as observers watching the titans, the Big Money players, the super PACs sort of duking it out in the ring like two professional wrestlers, but that they can participate. Everyday citizens could step in the ring and say, You know what? My voice is just as important as the voice of that big donor, and I demand to be heard. That is what that everyday citizen is saying. They want their voice to be heard, but we have got to give them a system that will allow for that. We called this bill the Government by the People Act because when I, and others, listen to Americans across the country, we hear them saying, We are tired of a government that appears to be of, by, and for the special interests and the Big Money. Put very simply, we want our government back. We want it back. The Government by the People Act is an attempt to begin to change business as usual and to create a system that will give government back to the people that it is supposed to represent. That is our only path back to relevancy, in the eyes of the general public. That is our only path back to restoring a trust and confidence that we need as an institution in order to get things done, and let me tell you something: when it comes to relevancy and trust and confidence, we are hanging on by a thread right now. When you look at the polls and the surveys in terms of what people think about Washington, and they feel that the priorities of this place have become Big Money and special interests, in the minds of most Americans, our relevancy is hanging by a thread. We need to do something. The Government by the People Act is a reform that can begin to reclaim government and democracy and the political system back for everyday citizens out there that are so frustrated with what is going on. So, Mr. Speaker, I am optimistic. I am optimistic by nature. I think we can get this reform. When we introduced the bill, we had 128 cosponsors at the point of introduction. We have 140 as of today. I think Members of this body themselves are at a point where they want to see something different. A lot of Members of Congress are exhausted by the current system. They wish they could raise money a different way. They wish they could run their campaigns and fund their campaigns by turning to the people they represent instead of having to chase the PAC money and the Big Money and the special interests all the time. There is something wrong with an equation where people go into the voting booth, they pull the lever for you and send you to Washington to represent them, and the day you get to Washington, you have to start representing the Big Money and the special interests because that is the only way you can raise money to fund your campaign. Let's think about it in those terms. What happens to the franchise when somebody gets here and they have to turn their back on the people who elected them because they have got to go raise the money from someplace else? What if the place you went to power your campaigns was back to your constituents--everyday citizens--because you had a system that would match their small donations and be able to lift a candidate up and power them forward? That would change the way things operate around here. I invite people listening to this to go back through the Congressional Record and read the statements of Members of the House and the Senate who announce their retirement and--sometimes within 24 hours--go to the floor of the Senate or the House and talk about the problem of money and politics and how corrosive it has become. Liberated finally from the current system by the fact that they have decided to move on, they are able to stand back and in a clear-eyed and candid way talk about this problem of influence that comes from Big Money and special interests and what it is doing to this place. I want to read you a quote because I think this really goes right to the heart of the matter. People are fed up with the gridlock and dysfunction here. We can connect a lot of that to this issue of money and politics. Let me read you a quote from 1982: When political action committees give money, they expect something in return other than good government. It is making it much more difficult to legislate. We may reach a point where if everybody is buying something with PAC money, we can't get anything done. Do you know who said that in 1982? Robert Dole, the minority leader at that time and a Republican Member of the U.S. Senate. That was in 1982. The influence of Big Money on our politics and on our governing has metastasized since then, but even then, on the front edge of this trend, Bob Dole could see what it would do to the institution, and he was lamenting it. So a public that is upset about gridlock and dysfunction of this place needs a solution that will address the influence Big Money has here. Because that will help, I think, change the whole way in which we operate. Other Members have made similar comments, as I mentioned a moment ago. So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am optimistic. I think we have a good piece of legislation. I think it goes to the heart and tries to address a lot of the cynicism that so many Americans have out there that their voice can't be heard. I want to mention that we have at this stage over 40 national organizations who have gotten behind this legislation. This is a new development. We have had reform bills in the past--good ones--but they didn't have that kind of broad support from grassroots organizations across the country--civil rights groups like the NAACP; environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Green Peace; labor groups who have been out there trying to address the issues of working families, like CWA and others. Why are they coming to this? Because they figured out what the American people have figured out. The good things they want to see when it comes to the environment or to creating jobs or to making sure people are treated fairly in this society, all those good things are being thwarted by the influence that Big Money has over the way this institution operates. So they are coming to this fight now, saying, If we care about the environment, if we care about jobs, if we care about economic justice, we have to adopt reforming the way campaigns are funded as part of our own efforts. Already, within the first 3 or 4 weeks since we introduced the bill, over 400,000 citizen cosponsors from across the country have signed petitions supporting the Government by the People Act because they understand that this reform is meaningful and will make a difference. So I am optimistic that we can get this done. We are not going to get it done tomorrow. We are not going to get it done next week. But with the opportunity to channel in a constructive way some of this anger and cynicism and frustration that the American people are feeling right now that their voice is not heard, if we have a vehicle to channel that and organize it into a strong momentum, then when the opportunity presents itself to actually achieve this reform, I think we can do it. I think that if we don't do it, Americans will finally turn away completely from this place and say, You can't help us any more. That is what is at stake here: the relevancy of this institution and the relevancy of this, the people's House, to the people, and until we address the problem of the influence of Big Money over our system, we are not going to be able to reclaim the confidence and the trust of the American people. So, Mr. Speaker, as I close, I wanted to tell the story of a person in my district. A couple of years ago, he came to one of my house parties. He is a longtime supporter of mine. He came up to me after the House party was over and said, Look, I would like to contribute $25 to your campaign. He said, I can't do more than that. I can't afford more than that, but I would like to do it. I would be proud to do it. I just don't know if it will make a difference. Will it matter? He was, I think, saying what many Americans are saying, which is, Do our voices count? Can we really compete with the Big Money out there? Is anybody listening to us? That is what he was saying to me. If we can pass legislation like the Government by the People Act and create a new way of funding our campaign that puts everyday citizens in the middle of the equation, make them the ones to sort of solve this problem for us, and empower them, then I will be able to say to constituents like that person who came up to me and was feeling marginalized by the current system, Not only are you relevant, not only is your voice important, your voice is the most important part of the way we power campaigns in this country. That is the message we need to send. That is the outreach we need to do. So we can move with this legislation from a system of politics, a democracy that is too often of, by, and for the Big Money campaign donors and the special interests, to a government that truly is of, by, and for the people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman of the Health Subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3362, which, I think, is really just designed to harass the Department of Health and Human Services as it is trying to do its job in bringing affordable health care to people all across this country. If you look at the metrics that are already being assembled by the agency on a monthly basis, they really present a very clear picture of whether there is progress being made or not being made with respect to the Web site and signing people up for affordable health care, and of course, we know that there is a lot of progress being made. That monthly report includes the total enrollments nationally and by State so that we can get a clear picture of what that trend is, and that is a positive trend. It includes a gender breakdown of those who have signed up for the plans, an age breakdown, the financial assistance, and what kinds of plans people are choosing. That is all good, useful information. Frankly, it is the kind of information that it makes sense to collect on a monthly basis, not on a weekly basis. I mean, these numbers sort of naturally evolve month to month. That is the picture, the photograph, you want to take--month to month. Week to week doesn't really get you any added insight into what is happening with the Web site or with the signups. Then look at some of the information that they would require on a weekly basis, and you have got to ask yourself: What purpose would it serve, a State-by-State breakdown--I am reading from the bill now--of the number of Web chat logins? What are we going to do with that information? That is not useful. That does not add anything to the clear picture that can emerge on a monthly basis of how we are doing with the Web site. Finally, I have to observe, as Ranking Member Waxman just did a moment ago, that we hear all the time from our friends on the other side about the importance of government efficiency and about working well and streamlining. We hear them talk about that both with respect to government and, obviously, in terms of what they want to do for private sector businesses out there. These kinds of requirements don't help with that. They are not going to make the agency function more smoothly and more efficiently and get the information out in a sensible way to the American people. This is really just designed to kind of harass the agency, to make them run around in small circles, gathering information and providing stuff that doesn't give us any added perspective or insight into the progress that really is now being made. We can get that picture on a monthly basis. The information that HHS is providing to us and to the public--to the American people--I think, is very valuable on that monthly basis, and that is the way we ought to continue to have it presented to us and presented to the American people. So I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3362. Let's let the agency do its job and do it well.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. We beseech the Speaker of this House, John Boehner, to bring a clean budget to the floor. That is the responsible thing to do. It is the democratic thing to do. Unfortunately, in a cynical power play that only serves to further inflame the wrath of the American people, the Speaker has erected a wall of obstructionism, a wall that, in truth, is separating the American people from their democracy. So we say today to the Speaker: Mr. Speaker, open these gates of democracy. Mr. Boehner, tear down this wall. Tear down this wall of obstructionism. Tear down this wall, this wall that has been constructed on a foundation of reckless ideology. Tear down this wall of shame upon which the most extreme members of your caucus have so proudly, almost gleefully, inscribed their names in mockery of the will of the American people. Tear down this wall of obstructionism. Show that democracy can indeed flourish in this Chamber. Bring a clean budget to the floor. Today, bring it to the floor. It will pass, and we can put our government back to work.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Lieutenant Colonel Alfred Rascon for over 40 years of dedicated service to the people of this country. Over those years, Lt. Col. Rascon has displayed unparalleled heroism, courage, and dedication to his duties which will serve as an inspiration to servicemen and the American people for years to come. We pay tribute to Lt. Col. Rascon's service as we celebrate him and the other Medal of Honor recipients that are part of today's special order. Lt. Col. Rascon was born in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1942. His family soon emigrated to Oxnard, California, where the lieutenant colonel graduated from high school and fulfilled his childhood dream of joining the United States Army. After completing specialist medical and airborne training, Lt. Col. Rascon was eventually deployed to Vietnam. As a medic, Lt. Col. Rascon assisted countless injured soldiers on the battlefield, but one event in particular exemplifies the remarkable courage he displayed that made him the quintessential Medal of Honor recipient. On March 16, 1966, Lt. Col. Rascon's platoon came under intense fire from an enemy force near the Long Khanh Province. Lt. Col. Rascon crawled under heavy machine gun fire and avoided grenade explosions in order to treat his fellow soldiers, shielding their bodies with his own and suffering grievous injuries from the shrapnel and gunfire that filled the air. After the fighting ceased, he ignored his own wounds, and instead treated the wounded and directed their evacuation. Lt. Col. Rascon's selfless acts of heroism are remarkable, yet what makes them even more extraordinary is that he only became a United States citizen after he left Vietnam. Lt. Col. Rascon displayed such unparalleled patriotism for our country even before he could officially call it his own. Lt. Col. Rascon now lives in Maryland's third congressional district and we are proud to call him one of our own. He has continued to serve his country proudly. He returned to Vietnam, then served as a military liaison to Panama and finally completed his service in the Army Medical Service Corps in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Lt. Col Rascon's heroism and dedication to the United States are an inspiration and are extraordinary reminders of the sacrifices our servicemen and women make for our country every day. I extend him my deepest gratitude for his years of service, and congratulate him once again for his well-deserved Medal of Honor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, June 20, 2013 marks the 39th anniversary of Turkey's invasion and occupation of the small island Republic of Cyprus. Over time, Turkey's forced division of Cyprus has become its signature failing--a senseless act of defiance against the family of nations. For more than 60-years, the United States and our European allies have given unyielding and steadfast economic, military and moral support to Turkey. Today, Turkey reaps great benefit from its relationship with the West. Its economy has grown tremendously. Its homeland is secure against enemies who know that NATO stands sentinel over Turkey. Turkey's rulers have long promised the people of Turkey that theirs is a nation on a journey to full democratic liberties, a powerful nation confident and secure in its place on the world stage, a country that pursues ``zero problems with its neighbors.'' As it seeks to join the European Union, Turkey has given repeated assurances to its allies that its principal ambition is to embrace democracy and the rule of law. How then to explain the continued stationing of 45,000 Turkish troops on Cyprus? How to explain a myriad of other conduct that so glaringly belies Turkey's stated aspirations. The truth is that an authoritarian impulse still pervades the Turkish ruling establishment and keeps it from democracy's full embrace. This was most recently illustrated in Turkey's treatment of the burgeoning relationship between Cyprus and Israel. Rather than join those two nations in a peaceful and democratic dialogue for the future development of the Eastern Mediterranean, Prime Minister Erdogan has set Turkish warships to sail in Cypriot waters and threatens the use of force against both Israel and Cyprus. The United States and our European allies must no longer tolerate Turkey's provocative and antidemocratic conduct. To that end, it is eminently fair to view Cyprus as the yard stick by which Turkey is to be judged. As long as Turkey maintains its occupation of the island, it cannot pretend to have rid itself of the utterly destructive colonial and authoritarian ideologies of a bygone era. To demonstrate a readiness to take up its responsibilities as a NATO ally and candidate country of the European Union, Cyprus is the test that Turkey must pass.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jhpiego, a non-profit, global health affiliate of Johns Hopkins University, on the occasion of their 40th anniversary. I would like to recognize the employees of Jhpiego for their tireless service in providing health care for vulnerable populations and preventing needless deaths throughout the developing world. Headquartered in my hometown of Baltimore, Jhpiego has grown to become a force for good around the world. Founded in 1973 by Dr. Theodore King, Jhpiego initially brought healthcare professionals from Latin America, Asia, and Africa to Baltimore to learn the latest practices in women's health. As time progressed, Jhpiego's leadership realized they could have a greater impact by bringing their medical knowledge and training to the countries whose populations they were trying to serve. In 1979, Jhpiego started in-country training programs on three continents. These programs were extremely successful and, in 1993, Jhpiego opened its first field office in Kenya. Today, Jhpiego operates field offices and clinics in over thirty countries providing invaluable medical services to people who would otherwise be without basic healthcare. This focus on developing the capacity of countries to create their own healthcare network, combined with the delivery of extremely low- cost solutions to common health problems, has proven to be the great genius of Jhpiego. Jhpiego and its more than 1,500 employees have successfully brought the resources and expertise of Johns Hopkins to over 150 countries around the world. In the process, they have trained tens of thousands of people to be reliable healthcare providers. This was no easy task. Over the past 40 years, Jhpiego has worked in some of the most remote areas of the world. Undaunted by this challenge, Jhpiego employees have learned to thrive under difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in recognizing Jhpiego and congratulating them on their 40th anniversary. This outstanding organization has made a tremendous impact, saving lives and improving quality of life around the world.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Howard County Library System for being named Library of the Year, and Mr. Matthew Winner of Columbia, Maryland, for being honored by the President as one of twelve museum and library ``Champions of Change.'' Each year, one of the 21,000 public and academic libraries in the United States, Canada and Mexico is awarded this prestigious honor. The winning library is one that ``most profoundly demonstrates creativity, leadership and innovation in developing signature events and initiatives, particularly those that can be emulated by others.'' I extend my congratulations to CEO and President, Valerie Gross, and to her remarkable team of educators and support staff at the Howard County libraries. It is the first library system in the entire mid-Atlantic region to receive this award. My parents always stressed the value of libraries as a tool for learning and enrichment. Now, as a parent myself, I have tried to do the same with my children. In this regard, the Howard County Library System and its patrons truly set an example for communities and families throughout our country. It is comprised of six branches that serve over 280,000 residents. Remarkably, 90 percent of those residents have and use library cards. The library system has the highest borrowing rate per capita in the United States, with over 7 million items checked out annually. The library is at the center of the educational, cultural and social network of Howard County. The success of the Howard County Library System is a testament to the dedicated staff and administrators of the library system, but also the commitment of the people of Howard County to the value of education and lifelong learning. Congratulations to the Howard County Public Library System, a 21st-century library system worthy of this distinguished honor. I would also like to congratulate Howard County resident and public school teacher and librarian, Matthew Winner of Columbia, Maryland, for being honored by the President as one of twelve museum and library ``Champions of Change.'' Winner is the co-author of the forthcoming book, Teaching Math with the Wii, the ``Busy Librarian'' blog, and he was recently named a 2013 Library Journal ``Mover & Shaker'' in the category of Tech Leaders. Through his innovative thinking and dedication to captivating the attention and potential of our students through gaming and other popular technologies, Mr. Winner is a leader in his field and making a real difference in his community. He is fully deserving of this recognition, and I offer him my thanks and congratulations.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 164-179, had I been present, I would have voted: Nos. 164--``yes''; No. 165--``yes''; No. 166--``yes''; No. 167--``no''; No. 168--``no''; No. 169--``no''; No. 170--``yes''; No. 171--``yes''; No. 172--``yes''; No. 173--``yes''; No. 174--``yes''; No. 175--``yes''; No. 176--``yes''; No. 177--``yes''; No. 178--``yes''; No. 179--``no''.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of the innocents that perished in 1915 during the Armenian Genocide. With a systematic barbarism visited upon them, countless Armenians made their way to Syria seeking refuge from persecution. Today, the world is aghast at the horrific violence engulfing Syria and the Armenian people are once again threatened with upheaval and dislocation. Each year, the United States Congress has the opportunity to stand with justice and recognize the Armenian Genocide. Such action would fortify America's moral standing in the family of nations and send a strong message to our NATO ally Turkey that it must examine the dark chapters of its past and the discriminatory impulses of its present. Turkey has repeatedly thwarted efforts by Congress and successive administrations to recognize the Armenian Genocide by threatening all manner of retaliation should recognition be accorded. I submit that we do no favors to Turkey by acquiescing in its cynical campaign. Turkey's path to the European Union, its abysmal relations with its ethnic and religious minorities, particularly its violent conflict with the Kurdish people, would all improve if the Armenian Genocide was addressed openly and honestly. As we approach the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in 2015, it is time for the United States to formally recognize this tragic chapter in world history and to bring some measure of peace and healing to those of Armenian descent.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of the innocent men, women, and children who perished in 1915 during the Armenian genocide. Each year, the United States Congress has the opportunity to stand on the side of justice and recognize the Armenian genocide. Such action would fortify America's moral standing in the family of nations and send a strong message to our NATO ally, Turkey, that it must examine the dark chapters of its past and the discriminatory impulses of its present. Turkey has repeatedly thwarted efforts by Congress and successive administrations to recognize the Armenian genocide by threatening all manner of retaliation should recognition be accorded. I submit that we do no favors to Turkey by acquiescing in its cynical campaign. As we approach the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide in 2015, it is time for the United States to formally recognize this tragic chapter in world history and to bring some measure of peace and healing to those of Armenian descent.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit this poem on behalf of a constituent in my district honoring the Baltimore Ravens for their Super Bowl XLVII win. Fear the Raven, Something To Rave About! (By Albert Carey Caswell) The . . . The Fire . . . The Unforgettable Fire! When, hearts and souls, and bodies and minds, so meet for but one desire! But, for one goal to so take them all higher! For no other team sport, has such passion and such fire! Or so depends upon their Band of Brothers, to so fashion victory from within themselves to be so inspired! Well, maybe when a great leader says he's going to retire! Feel The Fire! As a child a time ago, stepping out upon those fields of green as so . . . As a dream few of us will know! To play in The Super Bowl! And to stand on that National stage, as all around you this war is waged! Is but Something To Rave About! For it was in those long hot days of summer, that this great bond was so formed as they encumbered! As against all odds they fought on, young and old, the rookies and Pros . . . As all around them, the smell of fear in the air stood close! For only a few on opening day, in that uniform shall so be clothed! As its competition at its very height, that which so makes their great hearts shine so bright! And now as it all so comes down to this, 60 minutes, either heartache or bliss! To wear that Super Bowl ring, and hold that Lombardi Trophy up high and sing! ``And shine bright like a diamond, shine bright like a diamond in the sky,'' with but tears in your eyes . . . And to be one of football's aluminate, one of its highest of all society! Is But Something To Rave About, as down upon you the confetti flies . . . As you want to ``scream and shout,''and ``let it all out,'' singing ``oh we oh'' we are Super Bowl Champs, now That's Something To Rave About! For this is HARBAUGH, and this is WAR! As it's Brother VS Brother as so for sure! Going Coastal, East meets West! Who Will Be The Best? As it was but only a year ago, when in that end zone our dreams died so! But, The Ravens took that memory . . .and built upon it and would not let go! Something like ``remember The Alamo''!

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 192nd anniversary of Greek Independence Day. Greece and America are history's most storied democracies. Our Founding Fathers borrowed heavily from Greek antiquity to build American democracy. Our relationship with Greece, however, is more than one just of philosophical kinship. America, Greece, and Greek Americans have stood in solidarity since the founding of the United States. In this year, when we also celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, and the 100th anniversary of both Harriet Tubman's death and Rosa Parks' birth, it is especially fitting to recall how Hellenes and African Americans have reached out to one another to provide mutual support. When Hellenes acted to liberate themselves in 1821, James Williams, an African American sailor from my hometown of Baltimore, joined the Greek revolutionary navy and fought at the Battle of Navarino. In turn, John Zachos and Photius Fisk, orphans of the Greek War of Independence, became passionate abolitionists in America. Zachos was a member of the Educational Commission of Boston and New York. Fisk, a U.S. Navy chaplain, helped slaves find freedom by supporting the Underground Railroad. In 1922, recently arrived Greek immigrants organized the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association in Georgia to defend themselves against the Ku Klux Klan. AHEPA went on to help countless Greek immigrants assimilate into American society, and it weighed in on many of the most significant social issues of our time, including the movement for civil rights. Archbishop Iakovos, leader of the Greek Orthodox Church in America, carried that commitment forward when he marched alongside Martin Luther King, Jr., in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. An iconic photograph of those two great leaders appeared on the cover of Life Magazine. The historical relationship of these two proud communities embodies the greatness of America. On March 25, when we celebrate Greek Independence Day, we salute all those who have struggled for freedom, and we rededicate ourselves to ensuring that America remains a symbol of fairness and opportunity the world over. I rise today also to mourn the passing of the legendary Greek American, Andrew A. Athens of Chicago. Andy lived a life that few could match. He enlisted in the U.S. Army in January of 1942 and fought at the famous Battle of El Alamein in Egypt. He attained the rank of captain, and in 1945 was honored with the Bronze Star and the U.S. Army Commendation Medal for his outstanding military service. Andy went on to become a successful businessman and walked with kings and commoners, spreading the high ideals and values of Hellenism. Andy was at the forefront of organizing Greek Americans in their pursuit of justice for Cyprus and freedom for the Ecumenical Patriarchate. And in so many of what for him became routine endeavors, he embodied Hellenism in the public service by giving back to the broader American society. Whether it was AHEPA, the Order of St. Andrew, or organizations he founded such as the United Hellenic American Congress and Hellenicare, the scope of Andy's commitment to a myriad of important causes was breathtaking. He combined a gentleness of spirit with a fierce determination to make a difference. Andy's heart was always full as he gave graciously of his time and resources to make this world a better place. Above all, Andy Athens had a deep commitment to family. His beloved wife of 67 years, Louise, and Andy's entire family are in our thoughts. May his memory be ever eternal.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, peace and stability in the Caucuses is in the national interest of the United States and our European allies. That means achieving a peaceful resolution to the rising tensions between the peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan. A final status of the Nagorno Karabakh dispute must be achieved without resorting to war and must be in keeping with democratic principles, the rule of law and the protection of individual human rights. Decades of Soviet rule and the continuing dispute over Nagorno Karabakh have decimated the economy of Armenia. In stark contrast, Azerbaijan now enjoys a growing economy from the extraction of natural resources. This economic imbalance is further aggravated by the fact that both Turkey and Azerbaijan have sealed their borders with Armenia, with Azerbaijan pursuing an aggressive military build-up. The United States must continue to press for resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh dispute through the good offices and mechanisms of international actors such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We must be ever vigilant in decrying actions that undermine such efforts. I concur with the Obama administration's demand for an explanation of Azerbaijan's pardoning of Ramil Safarov. Azerbaijan's decision to pardon Ramil Safarov after he was convicted by a Hungarian court for the murder of an Armenian soldier while participating in NATO's Partnership for Peace program is not only unconscionable, it is a direct affront to NATO and its efforts to bring peace and stability to conflict regions through the Partnership for Peace program.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the soon-to-be ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Engel, for yielding this time, and I want to thank him for his eloquent opposition to H.R. 6649. This is not a noncontroversial bill. I know it's being brought here on suspension as though it is, and I'm sure in the past when we've had these transfers of vessels, excess defense materials and so forth, often that is a noncontroversial action to take. In this case, it's anything but noncontroversial, and I'm surprised, frankly, that the majority would bring the bill to the floor in this form. Turkey is the problem here. There are vessels that are being transferred to Turkey. These are vessels that apparently are obsolete from our standpoint, surplus material that can go to them. And, yes, Turkey is a NATO ally, but it's a problematic ally at best. At critical moments over a period of many years, when the United States has looked to its ally Turkey for assistance for some critical support, Turkey has been absent. You've heard already, discussed at length here, the unlawful occupation of Cyprus. We're talking about 38 years of unlawful occupation of our ally Cyprus. The adventurism of Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean and its recent conduct towards Israel has been detailed here at length. So what you have is, yes, an American ally but one that has created some real problems for us and is a destabilizing actor in the eastern Mediterranean. You can only characterize Turkey's behavior in that region as gunboat diplomacy. When you look at its conduct towards Cyprus, towards Israel, its interference with American commercial interests that are trying to operate in the exclusive economic zone of these two nations that are critical to U.S. national security, Turkey has threatened to use force to stop Texas-based Noble Energy from drilling for oil and gas off the shores of Cyprus and Israel. Texas-based Noble Energy is an American company, and yet we are now going to transfer these vessels to Turkey for further adventurism on the high seas. You've heard this now detailed on both sides. At one point in the last year and a half, Turkey threatened to mobilize its air and naval assets to escort ships to Gaza. As Congressman Engel says, we're about to enhance those naval assets, with high anxiety on my part and, I think, on the part of other Members that they'll be used in furtherance of this same kind of provocative behavior. If we are going transfer these things, at the very least we ought to be putting some conditions on this transfer--that no offensive use of these vessels can be made and that they can't be used to traverse these exclusive economic zones that we've talked about. But this is going free of any conditions, and it's why I have severe reservations about it. This could be an opportunity to step back and think about how we conduct our foreign policy. Every bill we pass here matters. It all makes a difference. This may be on suspension, and it may be getting rid of excess material, but it's a chance for us to send a powerful message in terms of the kind of foreign policy that the United States is going to exercise. Frankly, I don't think that Turkey should be a beneficiary of this bill given its conduct over many years, but particularly over the last couple of years. It sends the wrong message. It rewards bad behavior. For that reason, I oppose it.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, critical initiatives that help the Chesapeake Bay will be among the hardest hit by sequestration. These programs, including the Small Watersheds Program, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and the Section 319 Program, provide much needed resources for on-the-ground restoration and conservation efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These programs are some of the most important tools we have for addressing pollution and storm water runoff in the bay. An 8 percent cut would cost thousands of jobs and exacerbate the already crumbling public water infrastructure that is so prevalent in Maryland and across the country, adding pressure to State and local governments to pay for Federal programs that have been slashed. As we all know, the budget process is entirely about choices. We must make clean water and clean air a priority. I urge my colleagues to protect these critical programs from reckless cuts that will destroy jobs and destroy the environment.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the work of the 269 schools that have been selected by the U.S. Department of Education as 2012 National Blue Ribbon Schools. This prestigious honor recognizes the schools' accomplishments in improving student academic achievement and in attaining overall academic excellence. I am proud to report that ten of these schools are in Maryland, having previously been selected as Maryland Blue Ribbon Schools on the basis of sustained high performance or significant improvement in reading and mathematics as measured by Maryland State Assessments. I am particularly proud of the accomplishments of the four National Blue Ribbon Schools--Crofton Meadows Elementary School, Woodholme Elementary School, St. Augustine School, and Saint Peter's School--that are currently or will soon be located in Maryland's 3rd District. The passage of No Child Left Behind in 2002 charged schools with additional responsibilities to measure and report academic progress. These new requirements set a high bar, requiring schools to demonstrate gains in student proficiency and improvements in closing the achievement gap. The National Blue Ribbon Schools exemplify the goals of No Child Left Behind, and serve as exemplars of how best to help children reach their highest potential. As we work toward a long- overdue reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA), we must carefully review the successes of the National Blue Ribbon Schools to identify strategies and best practices that can be shared, and which other schools may benefit from examining and adopting. I look forward to continuing to support the work of the National Blue Ribbon awardees and all schools in Maryland, to ensure that they have the tools and resources they need to continue helping students excel.