Joe Sestak

Mr. SESTAK

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

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SESTAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment, to encourage more individuals to become Head Start and Early Head Start teachers, and to provide a way for existing Head Start teachers to improve their skills and education. This amendment is just building upon the efforts of someone that I have grown to very much respect, Congressman Tierney, who has been working on this issue for years. Specifically, this amendment proposes loan forgiveness of up to $10,000 for Head Start and Early Head Start teachers upon completion of a bachelor's degree, who will commit to working in a Head Start or Early Head Start program for at least 3 consecutive years. Earlier this spring, I held my district's first education summit, bringing together over 300 educators, experts, and citizens. We discussed the need to provide and retain high quality Head Start teachers, who serve our country's most disadvantaged, low-income children. Head Start teachers are so critical at the time of a child's cognitive reasoning development, and this amendment recognizes this by ensuring that more than 55,000 Head Start teachers have the means of getting their bachelor's degree by forgiving their student loan burden. As we call for increased qualifications in the Head Start workforce in H.R. 1429, with 50 percent Head Start teachers nationwide now to hold a bachelor's degree by 2013, we should also provide the means to help them reach this goal. This amendment offers one way of helping current Head Start teachers upgrade their qualifications, as well as to encourage future and current students to enter this important field of teaching. The rising cost of higher education is a concern for many, and repaying student loans is often too burdensome for these teachers, particularly when one realizes that Head Start teachers' average annual salary is only approximately $24,000 a year, forcing teachers not to go on to receive advanced degrees, or else to leave the profession in order to repay their student loans. This amendment will help to ensure that we are able to recruit and retain a high quality workforce for our Nation's Head Start programs. I urge all my colleagues to support this critical amendment to help our children's future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I am required to be absent from votes this day, May 1, 2007, for a pressing engagement in my District. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following bills: H. Res. 334, H. Con. Res. 112, and H. Res. 298.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as someone who wore the cloth of this Nation for 31 years, few things are as important to me as our obligation to support those who fought for our country. Our men and women in uniform serve selflessly on our behalf, and it is our foremost duty in Congress to do everything in our power to ensure that they have the care and the treatment they deserve, as they are, and they will remain, our most important recruiters in our volunteer Armed Forces of the future. So it matters how we treat them, as they will be the ones to encourage or discourage their sons and daughters, their loved ones and friends, to become or not to become part of what they once belonged to. With that in mind, recent reports about the conditions at Walter Reed were quite sobering to who we believe we are. I am as, if I am not more, responsible as anyone. I should have known better and looked more because of my 31 years of service. But the Armed Services Committee has now looked closely at this issue and taken a significant step forward in reporting H.R. 1538 to the House. This is a bill that will address concerns regarding the adequacy of the treatment received by our servicemembers returning home from Iraq. While we are all familiar with the images of soldiers who have returned home maimed as a result of an IED, it is another range of medical challenges that are increasingly being seen as a signature disability of the war in Iraq, mental health disorders and the invisible psychological trauma of post-traumatic stress disorder. According to a Pentagon study released last year, 35 percent of Iraqi war veterans received mental health care during the first year at home. Twelve percent were diagnosed with a mental health ailment. Left untreated, the more recognizable symptoms of PTSD, including nightmares or flashbacks, can ultimately lead to other problems, including drug and alcohol abuse. At a time when science has shown that mental health and physical health are inseparable, we cannot overlook the integral role that mental health care plays in the proper medical care of our servicemembers and veterans. This past Sunday, I attended an event hosted by the Military Order of the Purple Heart for the VA Medical Center in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and spoke to several of those who work with and treat veterans with PTSD. They emphasized to me their concerns about the level of resources, attention, and the scope of care available to those who need mental health services. This is an issue we cannot simply ignore because the challenges of mental illness are interwoven with the other challenges that we are confronted with in every corner of our society. And that is why I was honored that Representative Kennedy held with me a forum in my district on mental health and substance abuse last month, where, among other things, Congressman Kennedy spoke of the importance of properly addressing the needs of veterans and servicemembers. As a Nation, we will never be fully healthy, never fully productive, until we eliminate all barriers to good mental health care for all our citizens, and especially those who have put themselves in harm's way to serve our country. This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to reduce the likelihood that personnel in combat will develop post- traumatic stress disorder or other stress-related psychopathologies, what we might call psychological Kevlar. Prevention, how nice. No, how necessary. It is what we do in the military. Successful generals win. Then they go to war. This is what we must do to ensure that our soldiers are properly prepared, not just physically with the right Kevlar but, also, thanks to the knowledge developed through the peer-reviewed research called for in this amendment, with the proper psychological Kevlar. We must treat both physical and mental care of our troops the same. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESTAK. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 140, I whole-heartedly support recognizing the 186th anniversary of the independence of Greece celebrating Greek and American Democracy. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, I retired from the U.S. Navy after 31 years in our military, serving our Nation during the challenges of peace and in the fury of war, including commanding an aircraft carrier battle group of 30 ships and 15,000 sailors in combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Having worn the cloth of this Nation for so long, I know that our military is a national treasure that cannot be hoarded like miser's gold if it is to be a force for peace and progress, but nor can it be used recklessly. And now, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I am conscious that war is a shared responsibility in our Constitution between the President and Congress, as are the respective responsibilities of the executive and legislative branches to ensure U.S. security, and to provide for our common defense. My experience leads me to be concerned for U.S. security because of Iraq, a tragic misadventure that does not permit us to best address more important security challenges throughout the world. My experience also says don't double down on a bad military bet by using more troops as the President has proposed, when an increase has not worked before; have confidence in our diplomatic ability to lead regional negotiations for stability, even with Syria and Iran; and, set a date certain for redeploying out of Iraq, this year, to serve as the necessary leverage to have the Iraqis accept the reality of the personal consequence of not assuming responsibility for their nation. What concerns me about Iraq is the continuing use of our national treasure in what is an inconclusive, open-ended involvement within a country where the long-term benefits do not match what we need to reap, and where the tradeoffs in benefits of not focusing elsewhere is harming our future prosperity, interests, and values. We need to apply our resources elsewhere in the world, where terrorists come from, including Osama bin Laden, who is still on the loose, or where emerging nations such as in the Western Pacific have growing political and economic interests, and therefore influence, that may challenge ours. An alternative strategy is just what is needed, because remaining in Iraq means less security and a greater strategic security risk for America. It negatively impacts the readiness of our Armed Forces and hinders our ability to adequately focus on other security priorities here at home and throughout the world, including the global war on terror and regional challenges from Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran to the Western Pacific and Middle East regions. The fact is we have fostered a culture of dependence in Iraq, and it is time for Iraqi leaders to be responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop the civil war we are refereeing and bring about stability. We cannot do this work for them. Nor is that wonderful phrase I heard often when deployed to that region throughout the years, Anshala, Bugra: God willing, tomorrow, good enough any longer. So, yes, I will vote for this resolution, because sending more troops to Iraq and remaining there indefinitely will only increase the dependence of the Iraqis on America, both politically and militarily, at a time when they should be shouldering increased responsibility for their country, while impacting our degraded military and strategic security readiness further. But I also believe we need to go a step further and pursue an alternative strategy, which is why last week I introduced binding legislation setting the end of 2007 for our redeployment from Iraq. The rationale for doing so is clear: Redeployment from Iraq will enhance our security by allowing us to properly address other potential challenges around the world, and by allowing us to resolve the concerns about the readiness of our Armed Forces here at home. Rather than leading to a spiral of violence, redeploying from Iraq will serve as the necessary catalyst for the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their country, with regional nations then interested in ensuring stability when the United States is outside that country, but remaining with strength in the region. The needed reconciliation will only come about when the Iraqi political leaders are forced to take the difficult political steps needed to cease the violence in their country, such as building coalitions among competing sects, ensuring minority rights, balancing power between provincial and central governments, and sharing oil revenues among all regions in Iraq. And regional nations', particularly Syria's and Iran's, incentives change toward stability when the United States is no longer in the midst of the civil war, and these nations will have to bear the consequences of further strife, with refugee flows to their countries, and the possibility that these relatively allied nations could then be joined into a proxy battle to their detriment, as one is primarily Sunni and the other Shia. Only by a strategy of setting a date certain, a deliberate timetable for redeployment, are we able to create a catalyst for the political leaders in Iraq to acknowledge and accept that they must undertake the difficult political steps necessary to cease the sectarian violence, as they understand that they otherwise would bear the consequences of not assuming the responsibility for their country. Iraq is not the central front in terrorism. Rather, it is a result of our leadership forgetting the age-old axiom that ``successful generals win, then they go to war.'' In short, we did not accurately plan before we went into Iraq, and we should redeploy. The only way is to use our redeployment as the catalyst for Iraqis and other regional nations to accept their responsibilities for a relative peace. U.S. interests in the world do not include pouring endless amounts of our national treasure of lives and money into elusive, endless goals when there is an alternative strategy, and when we have so much else to achieve in this world.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, as this essential debate begins today, I am quite honored to be asked to make opening remarks at its beginning. I served in our military for over three decades, entering during the Vietnam War and serving under Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and our Commander in Chief today, President Bush. I had the honor of leading men and women in harm's way, the highest honor that our Nation can give to anyone; most recently in combat, over at Afghanistan and Iraq, where I commanded an aircraft carrier battle group of 30 ships and 15,000 sailors and marines. Having worn the cloth of this Nation so long, I know that duty of choice, that the citizens of this great country have about the future course of this war in Iraq is not an unpatriotic one, nor is what anyone will say in the next few days unpatriotic. If my 31 years in the military taught me anything, it was that we serve in this all-volunteer military to defend Americans' freedom to think as they please and to say what they think, even if they disagree with their leaders. A democracy is based on freedom of expression, and those who join the military do so to fight, if necessary, the wars which defend that freedom, hoping that our use will be to a wise end. And that is what concerns me about Iraq. The continuing use of our national treasure in what is an inconclusive, open-ended involvement within a country with long-term benefits does not match what we need to reap. It is why I am opposed to a troop surge that doubles down on a bad military debt that has been tried already. We need to apply our resources elsewhere in the world, where terrorists come from, including Osama bin Laden who is still on the loose, or emerging nations such as in the Western Pacific have growing political and economic interests and, therefore, influence that may challenge ours. I do not think that my extensive military experience alone gives me license to disagree with our strategy in Iraq, but just being an American who has closely watched and thought about the trade-off and benefits for our future prosperity, interest, and values does. Our military is a national treasure that should not be used recklessly, nor should it be hoarded like miser's gold. It is a vital resource if we are to continue to be a force for peace and prosperity, but throughout the world. And that is why I firmly believe in a planned end to our military engagement in Iraq within the next year as the primary catalyst for change in Iraq so their leaders are forced to accept the political and military responsibility for their country, with our diplomatic and economic help, and limited military support from outside Iraq, but within the region is best. It is for our Nation's greater security that I believe this, and why I cannot support a troop surge that strains our military readiness further and, more, our overall strategic security in a war that does not serve our Nation's greater interest in this world and our future.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I spent 31 years in the military defending our freedom of speech. I often wondered and hoped during those years, whether in the fury of war or the challenges of peace, what Washington was thinking, debating wisely at length about the use of our national treasure, those men and women who wear the cloth of our Nation overseas. I am concerned for U.S. security because of Iraq, a tragic misadventure that does not permit us to best address more important security challenges throughout this world. Don't double down on a bad military bet by using more troops. Have confidence in our diplomatic ability to lead even with Syria and Iran, set a date certain for redeploying out of Iraq this year to serve as the leverage to have the Iraqis accept the reality of the personal consequence of not assuming responsibility for their nation. That is why I will introduce legislation that sets the end of 2007 for our redeployment from Iraq to serve as the catalyst for the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their country so we can better address our security interests throughout this world.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I wish to honor a proud American and because it is my sad duty to announce the loss of Lieutenant General Milton H. Medenbach, superintendent emeritus of Valley Forge Academy in Wayne, Pennsylvania, who died this morning, January 16, 2007. Lieutenant General Medenbach turned 99 on December 31, 2006, and had been a member of the Valley Forge Military Academy & College faculty and staff since the fall of 1932. General Medenbach is a 1929 graduate of the Johns Hopkins University, where he was commissioned a secretary lieutenant, infantry (TANKS). He also attended the University of Marburg in Germany and was a student of military government at the University of Virginia and Yale University during his active military service. He held a doctorate from Gettysburg College. Upon the completion of his fellowship at the School of Diplomatic Service of the Austrian Foreign Office in Vienna, Austria, in 1932, he came home and joined the Valley Forge faculty as an instructor in the Foreign Language Department and as a tactical officer in the Commandant of Cadets Department. On leave from Valley Forge during World War II, General Medenbach served as Secretary of the General staff of the Army Air Corps Tactical Training Command and the Air Corps Training Command and later, in North Africa, Italy, France, Germany and Austria as a military government planner and officer under Field Marshal Alexander and General Eisenhower. Following active duty, General Medenbach returned to Valley Forge and served in the Pennsylvania National Guard. His many decorations included the Legion of Merit, the European Service Ribbon with two battle stars, the American Defense Ribbon, the Meritorious Service Unit Award, and the Pennsylvania State Guard Reserve Distinguished Service Ribbon. He was also listed in Who's Who in America. During his Valley Forge service, General Medenbach served in or assisted in the establishment of practically every department of the institution as an associate of the founder, Lieutenant General Milton G. Baker. He held the post of adjutant and chief of staff, as well as deputy superintendent, and served for more than 30 years as the commandant of cadets. He became the president on the retirement of General Baker and retired as superintendent emeritus in 1971. More recently, he served the school as volunteer historian and archivist and as the vice president and secretary of the Chapel Foundation Board of Directors. During the many years of his long service, General Medenbach was the driving force in establishing the high standards of character, personal discipline, drill, ceremonies, and individual fitness that have been the hallmarks of military excellence at Valley Forge. It is with great sadness that we mourn his passing, and our thoughts and prayers go out to his family at this time, as we thank him for his service.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, H.R. 3. While I am about to talk to a personal story, the issue of stem cell research is not just personal, it is much more than that. A year and a half ago, I retired from the U.S. Navy as my then-4- year-old daughter, Alex, was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. She is here today thanks to the wonderful medical treatment that she received from our Nation's doctors and nurses including high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell infusion. The medical coverage I received from our country as a military member allowed my daughter to receive the best care it had to offer, the care every American child should have access to. And that is why I ask to speak to this bill today above all others. The best of medical care today may not be good enough for tomorrow. Take a case such as my daughter's: there is a chance that brain tissue may be harmed by the very treatments intended to save young lives. Why would we preclude the medical promise that stem cell research offers for tomorrow's recuperative treatment or cure, not just for my daughter, but for all those Americans whose lives are inflicted by serious disease, or who now pass prematurely from us when they might not? Embryonic stem cell research may mean that every day 3,000 of our loved ones affected by Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or diabetes or spinal cord injury might have the quality and the full time of life they would not otherwise have. I thought about life every day as I lived in the pediatric oncology ward at Children's Hospital, just down the street from here. I always wondered if the children there would have a chance to experience life to its fullest. I understand debates, and I respect those couched in moral terms; but when the bargain we are offered is the opportunity that a child might live, how can we not strike that bargain? I would hope that we would not let young or old lives be shortened by the worst of plagues, which is, ``what might have been'' for them. For the promise of life, its quality, is the congressional tasking we are most charged with to promote the general welfare. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.