Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6398, which I was proud to cosponsor with my colleague, Congressman Doggett. This important measure will ensure that lawyer trust accounts, the interest income from which goes to support legal services programs across this country, will be fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, therefore providing to the providers of these programs an important assurance that going forward this source of funding will be protected.

For almost 20 years before I came to this body, I had the privilege of working with some of the finest legal services providers in the State of Maryland. And I want to thank them for the work they do every day to provide assistance to those underserved in our community. Every opportunity we get to support their work we should seize upon. And that's what we do with this measure. I thank my colleagues for their support of H.R. 6398.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank Chairman Towns, Chairman Lynch, Chairman Davis, who I worked with previously on this bill, cosponsors Gerry Connolly, Jim Moran, Dutch Ruppersberger, and others who have collaborated with us on bringing this bill forward. I also want to take a moment to salute Frank Wolf, our colleague on the other side of the aisle. He has worked on this issue for two decades, and he has been a tremendous advocate for telework, and I appreciate all of his support and collaboration as we develop these ideas going forward.

I was listening to the end of that statement that was just made, calling for efficiency and effectiveness in government, ways to address the bureaucracy and so forth. I can't think of a piece of legislation that does more to meet those objectives than this does. It creates a nimbleness on the part of the Federal Government with respect to how the workforce operates. And if you look at the goals that it seeks to promote, they all make perfect sense. They are common sense. First of all, the benefits include that you can improve productivity among the workforce. All the studies show that morale goes up, productivity goes up. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as it was referenced, can demonstrate huge increases in productivity among the workforce. So that is a benefit. It increases competitiveness. When the Federal Government goes into the marketplace, goes into the workplace to try to recruit good people, its ability to show that the telework opportunity is there is something that makes it more competitive in getting the best quality people to become part of our Federal Government.

When it comes to continuing operations in some kind of a crisis situation, if you have the telework capacity, you've got some recourse. The best evidence of this most recently was last year when we had the snowstorm shut down the government essentially for 3 days. But during those 3 days, those who had the ability to telework were able to continue to operate. And the estimate by John Berry, heading the Office of Personnel Management, was that it saved the Federal Government $30 million per day in terms of productivity that otherwise would have been lost. And that just gets to the cost question. Again, we've heard this objection based on the costs. The savings that will be generated when our Federal agencies adopt these telework policies will far outweigh any of the costs of implementing this program. So it's a very commonsense approach.

And what the bill does is very straightforward. It requires the agencies to have a telework policy in place to encourage it, to promote it, not to impose it on people who because of their particular job shouldn't be teleworking or don't want to do this, but to make sure that they have the opportunity to do it and to know that the agency encourages that kind of thing.

It appoints telework managing officers so there's a person designated within each agency who takes responsibility for this, so that they can actually help to implement it over time.

It has good evaluation components. The GAO and the Office of Personnel Management will conduct evaluations

on a periodic basis to determine the progress that this is making and come up with suggestions and recommendations going forward.

And then it also encourages, as I indicated before, that these agencies develop plans for continuing operations under difficult circumstances, taking advantage of telework.

So, for all these reasons, for the benefits that it bestows, for the objectives that it meets, for the commonsense aspect of it, I heartily urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of the American Legion, Post 116, located in my district in Reisterstown, Maryland. The American Legion is the largest wartime veterans' service organization in Maryland with 147 active Legion Posts serving virtually every community throughout the state.

The Reisterstown American Legion Post 116 was formed in 1935 by a group of 13 charter members. The original members met at each others' homes, the local Masonic Temple and the firehouse to conduct the American Legion business before finding a permanent location at the Garrison Forest School in Owings Mills. In the early fifties, the Post was able to purchase their first home on Route 140 in Reisterstown, giving members their own facility for conducting Legion business. The Post remained there until 1986 when construction of Interstate 795 forced relocation to the present site about two miles from the first Post Home. The present location houses nearly 400 members and includes a Sons of the American Legion Squadron of about 75 members, an American Legion Auxiliary of about 100 members and an active Legion Riders organization.

Over the years, the Reisterstown American Legion Post 116 family has been active in many community endeavors. Some of the Post's many community activities include giving assistance to the Reisterstown Recreation Council, awarding scholarships to students at Franklin High School, participating in the American Legion Boys State and the Auxiliary's Girls State programs, as well as taking part in the American Legion Oratorical Contest for high school students. In addition, the Post compiled a list of all known local veterans and donated this to the Baltimore County Library.

The Reisterstown American Legion Post 116 has contributed time and treasure to help many charitable organizations including, the Maryland Special Olympics, the Epilepsy Foundation, the United Cerebral Palsy Association, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, and organizations combating Multiple Sclerosis.

In 2010, the Reisterstown American Legion Post 116 was the winner of the Outstanding Newsletter Award, produced by editor and Past Post Commander Doug Lawrence. I would also like to congratulate the Post Officers for the 2010-2011 term as they celebrate the 75th Anniversary:

Commander Glenn ``Thumper'' Krout

1st Vice Commander Diane Hackney

2nd Vice Commander Bill Finch

Adjutant Len Gmeiner, Past Post Commander

Finance Officer Maurice ``Moe'' Morton, Past Detachment

Commander, Sons of the American Legion

Sergeant at Arms Keith Hughes, Past Post Commander

Chaplain Bill Finch

Judge Advocate Mark H. Olanoff

Service Officer Diane Hackney

Historian Keith Hughes, Past Post Commander

Madam Speaker, I strongly commend the Reisterstown American Legion Post 116 as they celebrate their 75th Anniversary on November 6, 2010.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Save the Bay Homeowner Act of 2010. This legislation would allow the 17 million citizens of the Chesapeake Bay watershed to become citizen stewards of the Bay and give them an active role in restoring it.

The bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a ``Save the Chesapeake Bay Home'' designation program that identifies various steps homeowners could voluntarily take around their property to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff and improve water quality in local streams and rivers that feed into the Bay. If a participating home meets certain standards, such as installing rain barrels or reducing fertilizer on their lawns, that home could be designated a ``Save the Chesapeake Bay Home.'' The legislation further directs the EPA to give credit to states and local jurisdictions for nutrient and sediment level reduction based upon the number of homeowners that achieve the ``Save the Chesapeake Bay Home'' designation.

Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA must develop a Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) because the Bay has failed to meet water quality goals and segments of the Bay are classified as ``impaired'' water ways. The TMDL will limit the amount of nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment that may enter the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries based on what is required to restore the Bay. Each state within the watershed will be required to meet pollution limits and water quality goals under this new framework. There are different ways that state and local governments can meet these standards but many require relatively expensive infrastructure upgrades or storm water runoff retrofits. This bill gives those state and local jurisdictions a voluntary tool to meet TMDL standards while engaging the 17 million citizens of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Furthermore, if states and local jurisdictions receive credit towards their TMDL limit for ``Save the Chesapeake Bay Homes,'' they can pass along those saving to homeowners who choose to participate in the program through reductions in their water and sewer bills or their property taxes--a meaningful incentive for citizens who do right by the Bay.

Madam Speaker, to truly Save the Chesapeake Bay, we need the 17 million people who live in the Bay's watershed to become citizen stewards of the streams and rivers in their community. If each individual within the watershed were to contribute to clean-up efforts, even in small ways, the aggregate would yield significant results in moving Bay restoration forward. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this bill, and I salute Congresswoman Harman for her excellent work on this and perceiving where there was a need and how that need could be met.

There are plenty of studies out there, and there's also a lot of anecdotal evidence that there are really severe shortages across our health workforce, and this is an area to which I brought particular attention, looking at where these shortages are, in trying to think not just how we look at the traditional pipelines to bring people into these positions, but how we think outside of the box at some of the nontraditional sources where we can find the expertise and the experience to bring that through the pipeline and to fill these shortages.

H.R. 3199 proposes a very innovative way to meet the needs that we have across the country for emergency medical technicians. It recognizes that military medics who are returning have acquired very valuable experience during their service, which positions them extremely well to meet those needs and to fill those positions.

It also recognizes that there's obstacles, that there's significant costs sometimes associated with the training that goes with certification, that it can be difficult in terms of getting that done in a timely fashion. What this bill does is address those issues. It would award grants to States to begin to streamline the licensing process, provide some resources to assist with the costs of training, and do other things to basically expedite this process of getting these experienced people into these jobs where we need them.

It makes a lot of common sense. I think that's why it's garnered bipartisan support, and I certainly urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Making Home Affordable Improvements Act of 2010. For the last eighteen months, the Obama Administration has tried very hard to make mortgage modifications available to struggling homeowners but the program has largely failed to have the impact we had hoped.

Average homeowners around the country are paying the price for an inflated housing market and a bursting real estate bubble--this is being felt acutely throughout Central Maryland. For every borrower who defaults, there are many others on the brink of default who are looking for a way forward.

And this isn't a problem that will go away quickly--an estimated 10 to 15 million Americans own homes that are worth less than they owe on their mortgages. These are homeowners with a strong financial incentive to default on their mortgages, irrespective of their ability to pay.

In a market in which the values of homes have fallen out of step with mortgage debt, I strongly believe that the best solution for homeowners is a structured bankruptcy process, including a judicial mortgage modification or ``cramdown.'' This is the process by which a bankruptcy judge reduces the value of a mortgage attached to a home, thereby reducing the monthly payment owed by the homeowner and allowing families to stay in their homes.

This would be only available to homeowners who elect to file bankruptcy, a lengthy and costly process with long-term consequences for individuals and their families--an avenue of last resort for struggling homeowners, not a new means for speculators to ``game the system.'' The House of Representatives passed legislation to provide bankruptcy judges with this authority, only to watch it die in the Senate. The political reality today is such that judicial mortgage modification may never become an available option for struggling homeowners, leading policy makers to search for an alternative.

Absent judicial modification, I believe that voluntary mortgage modification holds the promise of a better way forward for homeowners, but, as it stands today, it has failed to offer real relief to the millions of homeowners who are in desperate need of assistance. This can be attributed to a widespread unwillingness by banks to do right by their borrowers--the same borrowers who are acting against their financial self-interest by continuing to pay their mortgages each month.

The effort is also hampered, in part, by a bureaucratic and unwieldy modification process--one that is often overwhelming and unmanageable for the average homeowner. But working within the voluntary mortgage modification structure created by the White House as part of the Making Home Affordable Initiative, there are thousands of experts across the

country who are counseling homeowners on how to navigate this process.

These expert counselors are too often the last line of defense between a struggling homeowner and a lender seeking to foreclose and cast families out of their homes. Sadly, they do not have the resources they need to help the staggering number homeowners in crisis--a number projected to rise significantly in the coming months.

That is why I am introducing the Making Home Affordable Improvements Act--legislation that will direct funding designated for the big banks, as part of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), to the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program.

Federal foreclosure mitigation funding has enabled housing and mortgage experts to work with homeowners to avoid foreclosure, offering counsel on budgeting and planning as well as offering assistance in negotiating mortgage modifications with servicers. With this new funding, comes more stringent demands on banks, financial servicers and counselors.

The Making Home Affordable Improvements Act seeks to achieve two goals. First, for counselors working with borrowers struggling to stay in their homes, this legislation provides a small, lump-sum payment for each temporary trial modification arranged. But the ultimate goal must be either a permanent modification of the terms of their mortgage or an orderly, foreclosure-free exit from their homes. Unfortunately, there has been a substantial disconnect between the number of temporary agreements made between borrowers and servicers and the number of homeowners that ultimately receive permanent relief. That is why this legislation places a priority on permanent modification by providing counselors with a greater incentive to see these borrowers through to the end.

Because we have struggled to get access to meaningful data on the mortgage modifications performed by financial servicers, this legislation also requires regular, public disclosures by participating servicers.

Madam Speaker, this is not a perfect solution and I hope we will continue to look for ways to restore the authority for judges to modify mortgages through the bankruptcy process. But, in the meantime, lenders and servicers can and must do more to help struggling homeowners stay in their homes. By providing additional resources for mortgage modification counselors, we can provide expert assistance to struggling homeowners who are seeking an equitable agreement with their lender.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Rahall for his leadership on this critical legislation. I was pleased to work with the chairman to ensure that CEOs of oil companies are held accountable for the safety of their company's drilling operations.

We developed language included in the legislation that requires oil company CEOs to certify their drilling and spill response plan capabilities before receiving a permit to proceed. That language has been further strengthened by adding a provision to impose civil penalties on any CEO that files a false certification.

Penalties of consequence will force CEOs to take this process seriously and make it significantly less likely that companies submit inferior or faulty plans. The best CEOs will take this requirement in stride, recognizing it is a fair expectation of them. This provision will ensure accountability and make it less likely that a spill of this consequence will happen in the first place.

I rise today in strong support of the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act (H.R. 3534). The legislation includes significant and wide-ranging reforms to ensure that oil and gas development on federal lands and waters is only done when it can be transparent and safe.

The BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill has reinforced my very serious concerns about the effect of offshore drilling on coastal communities and maritime ecosystems. The tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico, which claimed the life of 11 people and released millions of gallons of crude oil into a fragile marine ecosystem, is a sad reminder of the inherent safety, environmental, and economic risks associated with offshore drilling. Oil drilling operations, no matter how expensive or technologically advanced, can never completely eliminate the risk of a major disaster. Like other accidents in the past, the long-term impact of this spill on the Gulf coast's fragile wetlands and local fishing communities will be devastating and long lasting.

BP actually had a response plan to deal with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Unfortunately, it was a farce. The plan 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. They clearly did not take this important responsibility seriously. Even when these glaring inaccuracies were made public, no single official at BP was responsible for the plan.

As this legislation was considered in the Committee on Natural Resources, I worked with Chairman Rahall to include language making the CEO at each oil company directly responsible for certifying the safety and adequacy of their drilling and spill response plans. I also offered an amendment today, included in the manager's amendment, which would

subject the CEO to civil penalties if he or she files a false certification or their company fails to develop or maintain the capabilities included in their response plans. This requirement and the potential penalties should result in self-correcting behavior, forcing CEOs to take this process seriously and making it significantly less likely that companies submit inferior or faulty plans.

It is imperative that there be clear consequences for substandard response plans or we could have a repeat of the disaster that unfolded in the Gulf of Mexico this summer. Adding this amendment ensures there is accountability when a CEO certifies a faulty plan and makes it much more likely that companies will appropriately scrutinize those plans. I believe that responsible CEOs will recognize this new requirement for what it is--a very basic standard that should be a best practice for responsible companies anyway. But for those who try to cut corners, this framework will certainly give them pause because there are real consequences for irresponsible behavior.

I also strongly support the funding included in this bill for conservation of natural, historic and cultural sites around the Nation. The legislation allocates a small portion of offshore drilling fees to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the preservation of vital land and water resources throughout the Nation. First envisioned by President Eisenhower, we have neglected this fund for far too long. Today this legislation delivers on past promises and supports the conservation of environmentally sensitive lands and critical habitat, especially shoreline areas such as those on the Chesapeake Bay. It also allows for conservation of rivers, lakes, recreational areas, and trails, as well as state and local parks for biking, hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching. Finally, the legislation provides resources for the Historic Preservation Fund to maintain our national historic sites that add so much to the character and culture of our Nation.

I strongly support this much needed legislation and I would encourage my fellow Members to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1796) to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to require residential carbon monoxide detectors to meet the applicable ANSI/UL standard by treating that standard as a consumer product safety rule, to encourage States to require the installation of such detectors in homes, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 1796, the Residential Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act, sponsored by Representative Jim Matheson of Utah.

Carbon monoxide poisoning kills more than 400 people each year and sends more than 20,000 people to hospital emergency rooms for treatment. Carbon monoxide can build up in your home in a furnace or some other fuel-burning appliance if it isn't functioning properly.

What makes this gas particularly dangerous is that you can't see it or smell it. At least with a fire, you can see the flames, smell the smoke, or feel the heat. With carbon monoxide, in many cases, all you start to feel is flu-like symptoms. You have no idea you are facing something even more dangerous.

But there is a simple and effective way to combat carbon monoxide poisoning: installing a carbon monoxide alarm in your home.

H.R. 1796 takes two important steps to promote the use of carbon monoxide alarms in homes and other places:

First, this legislation makes the voluntary industry standards for carbon monoxide alarms mandatory consumer product safety standards. This means these lifesaving devices will be required to meet these performance standards rather than allowing compliance to just be voluntary. If we are going to encourage the use of a safety device, then we must be sure that it meets and will continue to meet industry performance standards. Putting in place mandatory standards means that if a carbon monoxide alarm doesn't meet the relevant performance standard, then it cannot be sold in the United States and it will be subject to action by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Secondly, this legislation authorizes a grant program to encourage States to adopt laws to expand the use of carbon monoxide alarms in all homes with fuel-burning appliances or attached garages. The authorization for their program is very modest, just $2 million in each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015. The funds will help States and local governments with strong carbon monoxide alarm laws to carry out training for enforcement of those laws, educate the public about the dangers of carbon monoxide, and, most importantly, to purchase alarms for low-income and elderly households and other places serving vulnerable populations.

I want to thank my colleagues in the minority for working with us on this legislation. I want to salute my colleague, Representative Matheson. I would also like to thank the industry and other stakeholders for offering their advice to help improve this legislation and for their support of this measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, our colleague from Georgia's story really puts a punctuation mark on why this legislation is so critical.

I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of the legislation, Representative Matheson from Utah.

Madam Speaker, again, we can't emphasize enough the importance of this legislation. You've heard recounted here the tragic stories of what happens when you don't have these kinds of mechanisms in place and you don't have the education to support people in terms of bringing this into their homes. And so I want to again congratulate Representative Matheson for his efforts, thank my colleagues for the bipartisan support of this measure, and urge its passage today.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2480) to improve the accuracy of fur product labeling, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record.

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

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.