Joe Sestak

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my fellow Pennsylvanian (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. When General Akhromeyev came from the Soviet Union to visit the United States when the Soviet Union was breaking up, Admiral Crowe took him to many places, including an aircraft carrier. When he departed the aircraft carrier, he was asked by Admiral Crowe, Chairman of Our Joint Chiefs of Staff, ``What most impressed you?'' He turned to him and looked him in the eye and said, ``Your enlisted man.'' It is why General Washington, when he established the very first ribbon in the United States Army, a piece of purple ribbon which is today's Purple Heart, dictated that that award would only be given to enlisted men. The enlisted servicemembers are the heart of our military, and this bill is focused upon them. They are the ones who say, ``Here am I. Send me.'' I commend both sides of the aisle for recognizing who most deserves being remembered for the sacrifice to this Nation. It is the enlisted man and woman.

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month which does take place this year during May. The Asian American Pacific Islander, AAPI, community is, as was already noted, a very culturally and ethnically diverse community with a very rich heritage in the United States of America. The AAPI community, as was noted, is composed of over 15 million people across the United States and is one of the fastest growing minority groups in America. It represents nearly 5 percent of my Seventh Congressional District in Pennsylvania, and without any doubt plays a very vibrant part of the rich cultural fabric of my district. The AAPI community has also made significant contributions in developing our Nation. As was just noted in this brief exchange, there were many leaders, which I saw in my nearly four decades of military service from this rich community, whether from the Philippines, Japan, China, or across to India or the United Arab Emirates from being leaders in education, to fostering business and economic development, to promoting arts and media, and to helping develop innovative breakthroughs in health care medicine technology. In 1978, a joint congressional resolution was established which had the Asian Pacific American Heritage Week finally come about. The first 10 days of May were chosen to coincide with two key anniversaries: The arrival in the United States of the first Japanese immigrants on May 7, 1843, and the completion of the transcontinental railroad on May 10, 1869, bringing together two parts of America, and I hope in more and more all the world. In 1992, Congress expanded the week finally to a month-long celebration. Therefore, I am proud to join my colleagues in celebrating the rich heritage of the AAPI community that I see every day in my district and to recognize the contributions of the community during Asian Pacific Heritage Month.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor Israel on the 60th anniversary of its founding--May 14, 1948. Over the past 60 years, the United States and Israel have developed a close friendship based on our common democratic values and security interests. I strongly believe that it is in our Nation's best interest to further strengthen our relations with Israel and create a peaceful Middle East. There are over 3,500 Holocaust survivors living in the Greater Philadelphia region, and many are in my district. These men and women serve as a constant reminder to me to the history and birth of this nation. I have been to Israel numerous times in the Navy, and I recently met with Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Salai Mender, and Commander-in-Chief for the Israeli Navy, Eli Marom, to discuss how our countries' relationship can be developed further. Our conversation touched on our nations' economic relationship: the United States is Israel's top trading partners and American companies have significant investments in Israel's economy. I believe Congress has vested interest in continuing this economic relationship. Furthermore, we discussed the state of Israeli's military as well as foreign affairs, from Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism to the close relationship between Israel and the United States and their militaries. I firmly believe our economies would mutually benefit including the potential of a joint venture between the United States and Israel, such as the development of Littoral Combat Ships. Joint ventures would result in great mutual benefit by providing not only greater interoperability between American and Israeli militaries-- while also driving down costs for procurement by working together--but would also greatly enhance the already strong relationship between these two countries. More than our common bond of trade and security, however, our people share the common belief of Theodore Herzl, who once said ``if you will it, it is no dream.'' A safe and secure Israel is necessary not only for the people of Israel, but for the future of the democratic world. I stand here to affirm my commitment to enhancing the relationship between our nations and to congratulate Israel on its 60th anniversary.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Dr. Antoinette ``Toni'' Iadarola, president of Cabrini College in Delaware County in Radnor, Pennsylvania. On June 30th of this year, Dr. Iadarola will retire after 16 years as president of the College. During a tenure which comprises more than 30 percent of the College's 50-year history, Dr. Iadarola has led Cabrini to expand academic offerings, construct state-of-the-art facilities, and raise its regional and national profile. The College's academic standing was enhanced, SAT scores and grade-point-averages of incoming students increased, and full-time undergraduate enrollment grew from 763 in 1992 to 1,650 in 2008. Under her leadership, the College completed $100 million in capital improvements, and the endowment and reserves increased from $3 million to $30 million. During her tenure, Cabrini's annual operating budget went from $12.3 million to more than $60 million. With a history of preparing students for engaged citizenship, Cabrini was among the first institutions of higher learning nationally to implement community service into its core curriculum, and was the first in Pennsylvania to require community service of all its students. For the second year in a row, the College was named to the President's Higher Education Community Honor Roll with Distinction for General Community Service. In 2005, Cabrini became the first college in the country to sign an agreement with Catholic Relief Services to support the organization's global outreach program. As a founding member of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Consortium for Higher Education (SEPCHE), Dr. Iadarola helped procure more than $20 million from private and government sources for the eight-school consortium. Dr. Iadarola serves on the U.N. Commission on Disarmament Education, Conflict and Peace; on the board of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities; and on the board of Pennsylvania Campus Compact. In 2001, she was named ``One of the 30 Most Powerful People on the Main Line'' by Main Line Life Magazine, and in 2006, she was named a Woman of Distinction by the Philadelphia Business Journal and the National Association of Women Business Owners. Her extraordinary tenure as president is more than double the national average for private-college presidents, as measured by the American Council on Education.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about how we got into this situation, although someone said it best, I thought: too little oversight, too much greed, too little understanding. But there are several things we do understand. There is no single cause for why we got into this housing crisis, so there is no single solution. But second, we must act now. This March, there was a 57 percent increase in the number of defaults than the previous March a year ago. And of all of the adjustable rate mortgages that will be reset this year to a higher interest rate, 80 percent are the subprime category. Those subprime categories are at a delinquency twice that of a fixed rate. In short, even before the interest rates go up, we have so many people who are already in trouble with their loans. Third, and most importantly, this is not just about the homeowner or the mortgage lender, this is about all of us. What we have seen is not just harming the housing and manufacturing industries, it has seeped over into the bond market for municipal bonds and even for education to where, because of the exposure of bond insurers, we cannot have bonds that are being given in these categories. So, therefore, I think very highly of this bill. I think this bill is done in the right way. It is providing relief to actual, real people, those living in homes, not speculators. Second, it steps over and it doesn't give any bailout to lenders. It says you must write down your loans and you must pay into a reserve fund and do closing costs. Most importantly, it has the government reaping the rewards when the houses inevitably go back up in value. I think this is great for the economy. Mr. Speaker, I would ask one thing to consider as we go forward. I am taken by incentivizing people to come forward. And as someone on the other side said, incentivizing them even by being exposed to more risk. The CBO said that out of the 2.8 million foreclosures expected to occur if nothing happens between now and 2013, about 500,000 loans will be refinanced. CBO believes that many original and secondary lenders will be reluctant to participate. This is a problem that must be addressed. To be most effective, I believe that there must be greater incentives for the original lien holders--who take the haircut up front--to have the option to share in some portion of potential profits on resale. For those lenders willing to take a bigger piece of the risk upfront (beyond the 85 percent of current market value limit in the bill), there should be added incentive to participate in the upside potential. Overall, I support this bill because it addresses many of the issues that need to be solved quickly. But I believe that more needs to be done to provide proper incentives to ensure that lenders, who will play a critical role in the economic and housing recovery, will fully participate, and I am prepared to work with the Chairman and House leadership for an appropriate resolution.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, the completion of the human genome project 5 years ago made it possible to identify specific genes that trigger diseases later in life. However, out of at fear of losing their jobs or their health insurance, studies have shown that many Americans forego the potential health benefits of genetic testing. While involved in a course at the University of Pennsylvania on genetic discrimination, the position paper Dr. Ruth Cowan's students presented to me reemphasized that this concern of genetic discrimination risks stifling further scientific advances in genetic based research. No genetic nondiscrimination laws in health care, such as in my State of Pennsylvania, may mean foregoing cures based upon genetic research. With a young daughter who underwent treatment for a malignant brain tumor recently, I understand why, as scientific technology advances, discrimination cannot grow with it, or we harm not only the quality of life, but life itself. With State laws varying in how to maintain the privacy of genetic information, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act will set a national standard and take the first step toward advancing the scientific and health benefits of genetic research and protecting the genetic privacy of Americans. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise before you to salute the southeastern Pennsylvania Red Cross and its outstanding volunteers during National Volunteer Week. April 27 through May 3 is National Volunteer Week. Last year in southeastern Pennsylvania, 7,664 Red Cross volunteers helped victims of disaster, taught their neighbors how to save a life, mentored school kids on the meaning of community, and connected military families separated by war and thousands of miles. The Red Cross in southeastern Pennsylvania is the place where: Someone you do not recognize puts your family to bed the night you have been burned out of your home--72,000 fires in America last year, 905 of them in southeastern Pennsylvania. Red Cross volunteers answered the call every night when 5,292 of our neighbors--over 40% of them children--suddenly found themselves without a place to live. A total stranger will give you their blood--four million donors across America, 175,000 of them in southeastern Pennsylvania. Over 1,600 local Red Cross volunteers run over 240 blood drives every month. Someone you never knew will help save your child from drowning--11 million Americans were trained last year in life saving techniques, 111,739 in southeastern Pennsylvania in over 8,000 classes. You call to speak to a friendly voice when you have an emergency that involves a serviceman or woman overseas. 3,253 times, the Red Cross received those calls on its 24-7 hotline last year. 400 kids from 18 Philadelphia public high schools gather to learn how to save a life, to help out at the ``Kids Carnival'' on Martin Luther King Day, and to organize blood drives, food drives or toy drives in their schools and their communities. And Red Cross volunteers are people like: Martin Strom: During the day he is a SEPTA bus driver, but at night ``Big Marty'' turns up at the burning homes of people he has never met--starting them on the road to recovery from what for many is the worst night of their lives. Wilma Yeakel: Wilma has worked over 2,000 blood drives in 25 years, and she will tell you that volunteers are paid in six figures--s-m-i-l- e-s. Tom Warner: this septuagenarian still turns up at his neighborhood ``Y'' in Germantown to teach lifeguard classes--as he has every year for 57 years--and he will tell you that his lungs are in better shape than many of his students. Carol Barnett: longtime Eagles fan Carol has been helping military families for the last 17 years, working at least two ten-hour shifts like clockwork, every single week. And Carol volunteers on holidays so that others can take a break. Cornelius Moody: Franklin Learning Center junior Cornelius said it best in his essay on the honor of wearing his Red Cross Shirt: ``Our Red Cross Club is not just another school program, it's a mindset. A mindset to help anyone in need in any way you can, not because you know them, not for privileges, not for awards, but because in your heart you know you can help this person, you should help this person, so you will help this person.'' Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``It is part of the American character to consider nothing as desperate.'' Surely what Jefferson envisioned for his America were people like Janice Lufkin and Andrew Brownstein in Montgomery County; Dan Hagen and Edna Hendricks in Delaware County; and Ed Bittner and Debbie Dorito in Chester County--who have together put in over one century of service to people they will probably never see again, but who desperately needed their help, their shoulder, their kind words in their time of greatest need. These volunteers have served in every corner of this region, and in places like Biloxi, Pascagoola and New Orleans, at wildfires in California, tornadoes in the Midwest, bridge collapses in Minnesota, and hurricanes in Florida. Jefferson was right--nothing is desperate, when you live in a country with people like them and the other 7,664 volunteers here at the southeastern Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Red Cross.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you very much. I may be the one slowing us down tonight because I'm 50-something in a 30-something group. This is wonderful. If I might speak, I'm really honored to be asked to say a few words on the last day of the Month of the Military Child. In the Pentagon, across from the Secretary of Defense's office is the best painting in all of the Pentagon. It's of a young servicemember kneeling in church. And next to him is his young spouse and his young child. And under it is that wonderful saying from the book of Isaiah where God turns to Isaiah and says, Who shall I send? Who will go for us? And Isaiah replies, here am I. Send me. But really, what that picture depicts is the family that actually is saying, here we are, send us. I got to know, joining up in 1970 and on, a lot of those families. We don't have, in the military, a human resource department where you outsource problems or challenges. So you sit with them when they're in debt and help to balance their checkbook, or you sit there with them trying to make sure that they get the proper care in the hospital. You get to know the families very well. And you get to know them in another way during long deployments. Back then, in those early 1970 days, you'd sit there as a young man came up after leaving port and receiving a letter, or getting a letter at sea from another ship as it passes from ship to ship, from his wife that says, Johnny's okay after the operation. But he didn't know about the operation. Maybe in the next port of call, 30 days later, the letter would come in that said, want you to know Johnny had a broken leg. It's okay. He'll have an operation next week. Or go ahead 3\1/2\ decades or so, and how I could sit there and, with technology, record over the Internet and read each evening to my daughter, who was, during this, while gone from her for about a year, during the war and would be able to read to her a book so that she'd go up to the TV and just kiss it. Even today, 7 years later she goes up to the TV if I'm on and kisses it. I bring those up because I think what people in the military learn is that when authority or responsibility passes, and you come home, that what's really left is the infinite tenderness and caring of a loving family. And yet, we also recognize in the military, in words that were more reflective of its time, three, 3\1/2\ decades ago, that on the commissary bag, shopping bags of each of the military or the Navy complexes would be a saying, ``Navy wife, toughest job in the Navy.'' Or as 70 years ago, the wife of a Chief of Naval Operations said in a poem, a Navy wife remembers. When crying seems likely, just laugh it away. I bring those up because what sets our military apart from our professions, as someone once said, is it has the dignity of danger. And the character that our men and women who serve in the military show and triumph which didn't begin in theories. It really begins in those places from whence we come and the people who made us who we are, not just our communities, but in particular our families. And I bring that up because today as was brought out here, is every war is different. World War II, our veterans, on average, had about 182 days of combat. Horrific combat. Battles like Normandy or Guadalcanal. But there was some dwell time in between those battles, time for your physical nerves to adjust, which has a major impact upon your mental state, and time for your mental state to readjust. In Iraq, however, our soldiers go outside the wire every day for 15 months, into a combat-like situation, and then they come home for 12 and go back again. And then come back to families where 19 percent of them face Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, 33 percent have a mental challenge from depression to anxiety. So as our families say, here we are, send us, it's never been more vital than now to recognize that if this Nation still wants its families to say here we are, send us, we, more than ever before, I believe, owe it to our veterans to take care of them and their families in the ways that have been laid out much better than I could have by my colleagues. So thank you for speaking tonight. It's a wonderful brotherhood and sisterhood I lived in for many years that finds the grandest sepulchre of all, a home in the hearts of brave men and women. But again, when all that passes out there, what's left is that family. And whatever we can do for them, from now and forever, is the most arduous responsibility I believe Congress, in this time of war can be charged with.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Chairman, I rise today also in support of H.R. 5819, a bill to improve and modernize the Small Business Innovation Research program and the Small Business Technology Transfer program. Small businesses, the backbone of our economy, bring innovation, creativity, competition and lower costs to our economy. As elsewhere in America, 70 percent of all the new jobs in my district in Pennsylvania come from small businesses, and I strongly believe our economic security is dependent upon our ability to provide these businesses with the tools and the resources they need to grow. In 1982, as has been mentioned, Congress recognized the importance of retaining and increasing the innovation and research of small business by creating the Small Business Innovation Research program to stimulate technological innovations, meet Federal research and development needs, and increase the commercial success of innovation. The bill we will be voting on improves the Small Business Innovation Research program and the Small Business Technology Transfer program to ensure that small businesses receive the resources they need to continue to innovate, grow and succeed. Madam Chairman, this bill will make the necessary changes to modernize these two programs. This bill will increase funding available for grants, simplify the application process, broaden technical assistance, and create a more flexible process for the 11 participating Federal agencies. It also focuses agencies on granting funding to projects with commercial viability and promising research, and it requires agencies to establish databases to collect best practices information. I strongly believe that innovation is essential to the economic well- being of our Nation, and the Small Business Innovation Research program and the Small Business Technology Transfer program make a significant contribution to our economy. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote in support of this timely reauthorization.

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment mandates that an agency must specify in their notification that unsuccessful applicants are entitled to constructive feedback, potentially opening up the breadth of SBIR grant recipients. This is a very simple and valuable measure to increase the transparency of our Federal agencies. It would allow firms insight into a rejected application and would increase their competitiveness in the future. On more than one occasion, firms in my district have voiced their concern that the SBIR program awards grants to a relatively small group of businesses. A GAO study actually reported that the 25 most frequent winners of SBIR grants, which represents fewer than 1 percent of the companies in the program, received about 11 percent of the program's awards. Further, there are many qualified applicants that apply for these programs who are unsuccessful each year, but may not know that they are entitled to feedback and an explanation on the decision. Therefore, by mandating that an agency must specify in the notification that unsuccessful applicants are entitled to constructive feedback, I believe that this will allow firms insight so that they might increase their competitiveness in the future. Furthermore, this amendment will ensure accountability in our Federal agencies. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote to support this simple amendment to promote transparency and future competitiveness within the SBIR and STTR programs. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about increasing support and funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and the Head Start programs. We know these two Federal programs provide critical resources to support our Nation's children, educators and working families. At a time when almost 12 million children under age 5 are currently in child care, the resources for their care and early education continue to be stretched after 7 straight years of nearly flat funding. The stagnant support for these programs has caused thousands of children to lose child care assistance, and fewer children today attend Head Start programs than 6 years ago. The Child Care and Development Block Grant and Head Start are proven programs that lead to increased cognitive and social development. The programs greatly improve the ability of children to succeed in school. Increased funding will also promote greater employment among parents through less time missed from work, higher incomes, and reduced rates of turnover. In my State of Pennsylvania, over 522,000 children under age 6 need care because the parents are hard at work trying to provide their children with opportunities for success. That is why I support increased funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and the Head Start and Early Start programs. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Shortly, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will come before the House and the Senate to provide an update on the military and the political situation in Iraq. That is my grave concern, that once again we will have placed a man who is responsible for the security, the military security only, of Iraq, in the position, in the singular position, of determining the national security policy of the United States and the public's perception of it, when what is needed, what is direly needed, is a comprehensive assessment of the national security of America and the impact of the strategy we have in Iraq upon it. So in fact it is the questions that General Petraeus cannot or should not answer that are the most important ones. For example, the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be asked directly, what is the impact of Iraq upon the military's readiness to deploy and meet the required timelines of its various war plans, when in fact today it cannot deploy its forces, its army, in order to protect the 28,000 men and women who wear the cloth of our Nation in South Korea from an attack on the timelines required by North Korea against the South? And while before Iraq we actually trained on multiple areas of warfare, for the past 3 years your army has only been training in counterinsurgency. The Joint Chiefs of Staff must address the impact of 3 years of its army training only in one warfare area and being unable to meet any timeline of any war plan by its army in America's arsenal of war plans. Then, in the long term, the impact of 42 percent of our men and women who we are recruiting today being less capable than ever of being able to operate and maintain the systems of our weaponry in the future as they can in the past 3 years. Second, it is not the general or the ambassador who should come here to speak about Iraq's security, but rather our intelligence agencies that must address the question about whether the Iraq strategy has improved our overall efforts in the global war on terror, with Afghanistan once again prey to terrorists, and the Taliban having gone back into the ungoverned regions to protect them, and General Hayden, head of the CIA, having said that al Qaeda now has a safe haven in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. What is the impact of a strategy in that unstable region that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has described as ``in Iraq what we do what we must, but in Afghanistan, we do what we can.'' Officials from the State Department likewise must address the impact upon our allies of this war in Iraq and our relationships with them and the efforts to achieve other diplomatic goals, remembering that when we went into Bosnia, 50 percent of the coalition troops were non-U.S., and when we went into Iraq 5 years ago, less than 7 percent of the troops that entered that country were non-U.S. And then the Treasury, how can they explain the impact of what all economists agree are now almost $2 trillion to $3 trillion as the cost of this war in Iraq? When Iraq is awash in oil revenues, why are we using taxpayers' dollars? Therefore, the questions that General Petraeus can and should not answer comes down to, he should not be the one to tell us how long and at what cost before we change our strategy. It is only if Congress changes the forum for this general to come before us to say and hold up a national mirror, this is the impact of Iraq upon our overall national security strategy, and if it is not working and if it is negatively impacting it, we must therefore change the strategy. I believe it is against the spirit, as a man who has served in the military 31 years until I entered Congress, to have a military man placed in the position to determine singularly, when he is only responsible for the security of Iraq, to then determine without everyone else there the right strategy and course for America's national security. We must have that debate. Is the strategy working? Is it harming our overall national security? If it is, change the strategy.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I was assigned to the Pentagon the day 9/11 happened. It was very obvious, sitting there at dead center, that the world had changed. We in the military used to like away games. We liked our wars over there. Suddenly we had a home game and things had to change. A few days later, I was appointed to be head of the Navy's antiterrorism unit. Shortly after that, I was on the ground in Afghanistan flying in with a fellow from the CIA with a suitcase filled with millions of dollars. I wanted the best insurance, the best intelligence. But I felt I always had that because I had worked at the National Security Council, where in counterproliferation and antiterrorism efforts there, I was able to see that whether it had been President Reagan, President Clinton, or the first President Bush, FISA provided that ability. I like this bill. It is very similar to the Senate bill. If someone in Saudi Arabia is talking to someone in Germany and it routes to the United States, we can listen in without asking questions. I remember being in the White House and being frustrated, because if somebody was doing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we couldn't, under FISA, get a warrant for them. This bill fixes that. And then I step back in emergencies. This bill fixes it in an emergency situation that you don't even have to ask permission; you can just do it. And it extends from 3 days of having to come to the court till 7 days. And then even if the court takes another 30 days, keep listening. Thank you for that. But the real differences come down to what I think is important, because every day I was out there for 31 years in the military, I wasn't just fighting an enemy or trying to deter him; I was fighting for an ideal, the ideal of which America is founded upon, the rights of civil rights. Therefore, I honestly believe what we have done in the telecommunications companies and discussing immunity should be done by the proper branch of government, the judicial branch, a court, the FISA Court. Then if everything was not awry, then we can say, under the provisions of the previous law, they have immunity. And then I would like to also point out that it is very important to me that we have oversight on reports that are coming, and they must come to the FISA Court to explain the procedures they will follow. That type of oversight is what I followed for. In short, I will never forget being over there in charge of my carrier battle group, fighting in Afghanistan, that what I was fighting for was security, number one, properly balanced with civil rights. This bill does do that. I wouldn't vote for it any other way unless it did.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1424 for three simple reasons based upon my experience in the U.S. military: First, today we're seeing 17 percent of those who wear the cloth of our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan returning with post-traumatic stress disorder. And over one-third are returning with a mental disorder from anxiety to depression. They will feed into our society. How can we not give them the same parity as we do to those who are double amputees and we give prosthetics? Second, again in the military we put money in in order to prevent a greater crisis. We were the insurance for this Nation. Presently, we spend up to three times the cost, indirect cost of mental illness as it would take for the treatment. How can we not pursue this, both for the good of the individual and the cost-benefit for our society? And the third simple reason is, I honestly do believe in the ideals that Hubert Humphrey said. The moral test of our government is how well it takes care of those in the dawn of life, the children, those in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the disabled, the handicapped. I'm sure he would have included in that the mentally disabled, the largest disability in America.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, since then Senator John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps in 1961, more than 190,000 U.S. citizens from all walks of life have served their country in the cause of peace by living and working side by side with our friends in 139 developing countries around the world. Our volunteers, representing the rich diversity of the American people, have helped those in need, promoted cross-cultural understanding, and created bonds of friendship that will last a lifetime. I rise today to honor these brave volunteers and to commemorate this as National Peace Corps Week, marking the 47th Anniversary of the Peace Corps on March 1, 2008. As of September 2007, 8,079 Peace Corps volunteers are currently at 68 posts serving 74 countries, a 37-year high in program participation. Additionally, the Peace Corps has seen an increase in minority recruitment, with minorities now comprising 17 percent of all volunteers. The volunteers have made significant and lasting global contributions in agriculture, business development, information technology, education, health and HIV/AIDS, youth, and the environment. Returned volunteers often use the skills they acquire abroad to pursue careers in the U.S. Congress, the Executive branch, and the Foreign Service. I am proud to recognize the 16 volunteers from the 7th District of Pennsylvania who are currently serving their country and the world as Peace Corps volunteers and ask unanimous consent that their names be submitted for the record: Justin M. Berman, Eric B. Geer, Tiffany I. Green, Katharine C. Heaton, Eli R. Heller, Bibi R. Khan, Thomas R. Kuklinski, John C. Langdon, James M. Lasak, Richard J. Liuzzi, John Paul Nicewinter, John F. Reilly, Chrystal L. Smith, Laura M. Urbanski, Maria E. Velez, and Sarah M. Young. I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating National Peace Corps Week and to celebrate all our dedicated volunteers' important work. The spirit of service and opportunity they carry with them will help create a safer, brighter future for all. Thank you to our Peace Corps volunteers.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, when 9/11 happened, we, as a Nation, realized that, while we used to like away games, we liked our wars over there, suddenly we were confronted with a home game, a danger right here in America. And so the discussion over the last few weeks over the wiretapping capability of the United States is absolutely critical. I know. I headed, after 9/11, the Navy's Antiterrorism Unit. When the bill came over here from the Senate, we asked for what we should have done. Time to address two important issues. One, what's the proper oversight that we should have on those who wiretap? An Inspector General, a report to Congress and to the Surveillance Court. And second, amnesty. Do we give someone who has broken the law, the telecommunication companies, amnesty for facilitating wiretapping? We may. But first let us know, before you give someone amnesty, why they did it and what they did. In short, right now we're operating under the same rules as President Reagan had, as the first President Bush and the second President Bush had for 6\1/2\ years. Now we need to compromise on both sides to ensure that our security is balanced with proper civil rights.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, when I joined the Navy during the Vietnam War, we had one destroyer in the Persian Gulf. And a few years later in the early 1970s, we had our very first embargo of oil, blockade of oil of the United States when OPEC, which today controls 42 percent of the oil resources, shut off the spigot. Shortly thereafter, in the Navy, we moved an aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf where it has remained ever since. Including during the war, the tanker war in the 1980s where we convoyed oil tankers back and forth, and as we did so and I did so, I just questioned all the time, Why are we doing this? Can't we act? I watched from the mid-1980s as the amount of oil imports from overseas increased from 27 percent to 60 percent today. We are en route to 70 percent by 2025. And $7 trillion we have lost due to these price disruptions and these price manipulations by those overseas. Do we expect the price to go down like it did after the 1970s? I'm not so sure, unless we take action. Because now we have China that just this past year passed us as the number one emitter of bad air emissions at 22 percent of all bad greenhouse emissions. This is a China that in the next decade wants an Ozzie and Harriet home for everyone in its populace. In one decade that will take as much energy that we have used as a world in the last two centuries. As I sit back, I believe that this bill is late. It should have been done before. It should have had these incentives for us to manufacture energy-efficient appliances; to have working families then be incentivized to purchase them; to have production tax credits in order to have affordable energy, solar power, and geothermal energy. I speak here from the experience of being out there. This is a military security issue. This is an energy security issue but also a military security issue, a national security issue. And on FISA, if I might speak, I headed the Navy's antiterrorism unit. I was in the White House working terrorism issues. This bill is about efficiency, not effectiveness. We are as safe today as when President Reagan operated under FISA as the first President Bush, as this President. I know. I was on the ground in Afghanistan. I wanted that intelligence. There is no way I would even vote in order to do what we are doing on FISA if I didn't know the men and women who wear the cloth of this Nation are not as safe today as they were a year ago.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to thank and congratulate General Montgomery C. Meigs, USA, for his dedicated service to the armed forces of the United States of America. General Meigs is receiving the General Alexander M. Haig, Jr. ``Guardian of Liberty'' award from the West Point Society of Philadelphia. This is awarded to individuals who exemplify the Motto of ``Duty, Honor, Country'' while contributing to and guarding the freedom which we all enjoy. Past recipients have been General Haig, General Jowlan, Secretary of the Army Tom White, General Clark, General Shinseki, General Reimer, and General Downing. General Meigs' academic credentials are remarkable. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy and he graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a Master's Degree and a Doctorate in History. He also is a graduate of the Armor Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, United States Army Command and General Staff College, and National War College. General Meigs has had a variety of key leadership and management positions throughout his career including: Squadron Maintenance Officer, Vietnam; Chief, Strategic Application Branch, Office of the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy, J-5, The Joint Staff Washington, DC; Commander, 2d Brigade, 1st Armored Division, United States Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany and Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, Saudi Arabia; Commanding General, United States Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany and Commander, Stabilization Force, Bosnia-Herzegovina. His awards speak to an extraordinarily successful career and include: Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star Medal with ``V'' device, Bronze Star Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medals, Army Commendation Medal with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, Ranger Tab, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge. General Meigs' family, friends, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and our entire nation extend their gratitude to him for a career of selfless dedication to our safety and security.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, on behalf of all the citizens of the 7th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, it gives me great pleasure to thank and congratulate Lieutenant Colonel Mary Martin, USA, for her dedicated service to the armed force of the United States of America. LTC Martin's academic credentials are remarkable. She is a graduate of The Pennsylvania State University with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology and a Master's Degree in Human Resources Management from Chapman University, she was commissioned a Second Lieutenant, Medical Service Corps through ROTC in 1987. Also a graduate of the Medical Service Corps Basic Course, the Medical Logistics Management Course (Honor Graduate), the Combined Logistics Officer Advanced Course (Honor Graduate), the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency Internship, Command and General Staff College, and the Navy Advanced Management Program. LTC Martin has had a variety of key leadership and management positions throughout her career including: Platoon Leader and Division Medical Supply Officer, 7th Medical Battalion, 7th Infantry Division (L), Fort Ord, CA; Chief, Distribution Division, 6th Medical Supply, Optical, and Maintenance Battalion, Camp Carroll, Korea; Commander, Charlie Company and later S3, 325th Forward Support Battalion, 25th Infantry Division (L), Schofield Barracks, HI; Chief, Logistics Division, Dunham Army Health Clinic, Carlisle Barracks, PA; Logistics Readiness Officer, U.S. Army Pacific, Fort Shafter, HI; Executive Officer, Pacific Regional Dental Command, Tripler Army Medical Center, HI; Program Manager, ECAT, Defense Supply Center, Philadelphia; Chief, Joint Readiness, Defense Supply Center, Philadelphia; and Chief, Customer Facing Division, Defense Supply Center, Philadelphia. Most importantly, LTC Martin has been a healer, warrior and ambassador of goodwill for our nation through difficult deployments to the Republic of Haiti in support of Operation Uphold Democracy; to East Timor in support of Operation Stabilise; to Iraq in support of the Coalition Provisional Authority Ministry of Health; and to Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi/Enduring Freedom. She has also deployed to Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia in support of medical humanitarian outreach programs. Her awards speak to an extraordinarily successful career and include: Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Achievement Medal with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster, the coveted Expert Field Medical Badge, and the Parachutist Badge. LTC Martin was also inducted in the Order of Military Medical Merit. LTC Martin's family, friends and neighbors of the 7th Congressional District, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and our entire nation extend their gratitude to her for a career of selfless dedication to our safety and security.