Joe Sestak

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has said, I am privileged to stand up here as a former Navy officer with someone who has served so well in the U.S. Marine Corps. Someone has said that the Navy without the Marine Corps is like a coat without buttons. So it is a great bipartisan effort here on what I think is an instrumental bill. As Mr. Kline knows, and why he has worked on this so assiduously over the years, when you lead men and women in combat, what you most want them to have is their head in the game. You don't want them looking back at some problems at home, at debt at home that is hurting their families, nor do you want them looking ahead into some type of future that they want to have. Their safety and the safety of their brethren, the men and women standing on either side of them, depends upon them having their head in the game. That is why this bill is so very important. It is extremely important now in Iraq and Afghanistan. I compare the men and women out there and having their head in the game compared to those great patriots of the world's greatest generation, World War II. Back in World War II, the average soldier was in combat 182 days. There were horrific battles from Guadalcanal to Iwo Jima to the Battle of the Bulge, but there was dwell time in between those great battles. Our soldiers, our marines over there in Iraq and Afghanistan go outside the wire every day for 15 months. There is unremitting strain upon them. In order to have a measure of relieving that, I am proud to stand beside you, sir, on this bill. I urge my colleagues to do what is important, recognize the bipartisan approach of this and recognize that this is the way to take care of our troops. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise before you to honor Mr. Carl Ullrich for his induction into the Army Sports Hall of Fame, his service to our nation in the U.S. Navy during World War II and the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean Conflict, his lifetime of service to our Nation's student athletes, and as the patriarch of a remarkable and respected family. Following his combat tour in Korea, Mr. Ullrich embarked on a life devoted to leading, teaching and coaching with an energy and effectiveness that would profoundly and positively influence the lives of tens of thousands of young men and women and their families. For more than a half century, Mr. Ullrich was an exemplar of integrity, accountability and decency at the Friends Academy in New York, Irvington High School and Newark Academy in New Jersey, Cornell University, Columbia University, Boston University, Sanford Naval Academy, the United States Naval Academy, Western Michigan University, the United States Military Academy, The Patriot League and St. Andrews Presbyterian College. He has been an ideal steward of the spirit of intercollegiate athletics as envisioned by President Theodore Roosevelt when he established the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States in 1906. Just as President Roosevelt wrote to his children, ``I don't want you to sacrifice standing well in your studies to any over-athleticism; and I need not tell you that character counts for a great deal more than either intellect or body in winning success in life,'' so too did Carl Ullrich impress those same values on his children, two generations of student athletes, and many who administer and legislate intercollegiate athletics. It is important to note that some of those student athletes have carried Mr. Ullrich's ideals with them as they served with great courage in our armed forces. For that alone, he deserves our sincerest thanks and appreciation. However, greatest of all his many accomplishments is his family. His wife Becky is his partner, friend, and guiding light for over fifty- four years. His daughters Julie Anderson and Kathy Donovan are mothers, key members of their communities and accomplished women. His sons Rick, Tom and Mike have carried on their father's commitment to family, honor and country. His son-in-law Walt Donovan served our Navy for thirty years. He is the proud grandfather to Kelly Meissner, Ben Anderson, Alex Ullrich, Andrew Ullrich, Ned Ullrich, Liam Donovan, Courtney Donovan, Rebecca Ullrich, Chris Ullrich, Taylor Ullrich, Rachel Ullrich, and Jacob Ullrich; and great grandfather to Lisa and Cara Meissner. Madam Speaker, it is especially fitting that Carl Ullrich was chosen to be inducted into the Army Sports Hall of Fame at this time. With our nation at war and our society too often distracted by the excesses of some professional athletes, the leadership at West Point is to be commended for allowing us all a moment to reflect on the achievements of an individual who embodies all that is good and right in our country.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Eleventh Annual Rotorfest presented by the American Helicopter Museum and Education Center. Every October more than 12,000 people gather at the Brandywine Airport in West Chester, Pennsylvania for Rotorfest, a weekend festival devoted to promoting rotary flight mechanics. This year's festival takes place on October 13th and 14th. This year's All Helicopter Air Show features the U.S. Army Special Operations Command Parachute Demonstration Team, known as the Black Daggers. There are three shows a day featuring military and civilian helicopters performing choreographed flight demonstrations. The American Helicopter Museum and Education Center is committed to preserving the history of rotary flight mechanics. The museum is dedicated to educating the public with programs about the principles of flight, the innovators of aviation and to encourage future scientists and innovators. The museum features eight hands-on helicopters where visitors can test their flying skills. This year the museum features the only V-22 Osprey on exhibit in the world. New to the museum's collection this year is a Boeing M360, an experimental, all composite helicopter that came close to breaking the world's speed record. I am pleased to celebrate the eleventh year of this festival that is fun for all ages. I am thankful to the American Helicopter Museum and Education Center for their dedication to preserving the history and promoting the future of rotary based flight. I ask that everyone to join me in commending the American Helicopter Museum and Education Center for their commitment to educating and entertaining the public.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Saint Philomena School for 100 years of educational excellence in Delaware County. Located in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, St. Philomena opened its doors on September 4, 1907, making it one of Delaware County's oldest Catholic schools. Since that time, the school has provided four generations of quality Catholic education, touching the hearts and minds of countless children, and epitomizing the school's motto, ``Experience the Difference, Commit to the Future''. I would like to recognize the school's pastor, Monsignor David Benz, and principal, Ms. Patricia Walsh, for their service and impassioned dedication to educating the students of the Saint Philomena School. I would also like to recognize and extend my gratitude to Ms. McKenna, an alumna of the school who has devoted 45 years to teaching, 30 of which were as the 8th grade teacher at St. Philomena School. I ask that everyone join me in congratulating St. Philomena School on 100 years of great education, recognizing its contribution to the community, and acknowledging the dedication of its staff and administrators.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the chairman and ranking member. For the past 10 years, the FAA has been working on the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia metropolitan area airspace redesign project. In the time that I and Representative Andrews from New Jersey have been working on this issue, it has become increasingly clear to us that the process by which it was conducted is deeply flawed. We are gravely concerned that the FAA has failed to conduct an accurate cost-benefit analysis that takes into account the full cost of this project, including social costs such as the impact of noise on the educational development, health, safety, and property values to dense residential communities, including many in Delaware County in my congressional district, as well as Camden and Gloucester Counties in Representative Andrews' congressional district. As the 2005 Department of Transportation Inspector General report and as former FAA Administrator Marion Blakely indicated to us, the cost effectiveness and operational efficiency gained by the airspace redesign is still largely unknown, and, quite frankly, ``the juice is not worth the squeeze.'' I would like to thank my colleagues Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Costello for supporting a Government Accountability Office study to provide a comprehensive assessment of the New York/New Jersey/ Philadelphia metropolitan area airspace redesign, including its cost, schedule, estimate reliability, environmental impact, and lessons learned for improvement. This is particularly important since GAO provides an independent cost-benefit analysis of this plan.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., on the occasion of the company's 10 Year Anniversary. Endo, whose corporate headquarters are located in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, in the heart of the 7th Congressional District, is an American success story on many important levels. The company's roots as a pharmaceutical enterprise actually run quite deep, dating back to the 1920s when a family-run pharmaceutical business named Intravenous Products of America was established in New York. Its name was changed to Endo Products in 1935. In 1969 E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) acquired since renamed Endo Labs. In the early 1990s DuPont, in a joint venture with Merck and Company, formed DuPont Merck Pharmaceuticals, and named its generics business Endo Laboratories LLC. In 1997, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an independent company, was formed through the vision of former DuPont Merck executives led by Carol Ammon and Mariann MacDonald. The vision they shared was to create a leading pain management company focused on the needs of patients and physicians. Leaping ten years forward to today, it is plain to see that Endo has already accomplished its initial goal and is looking toward new horizons, and bolder challenges. Endo's initial success came on the heels of meeting physician and patient pain management needs by introducing new dosage strengths of its well-known pain reliever PERCOCET , and in-licensing LIDODERM , the first FDA-approved topical patch for pain associated with post- herpetic neuralgia, a dreaded complication from shingles. And recently, Endo launched the newest strong opioid for patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain, OPANA ER, together with a comprehensive risk management plan to ensure appropriate physician prescribing and patient education of pain medicines. As Endo continued to grow throughout the late 1990s and into this decade, the company, with the help of employees at its research and development laboratories in New York, began developing new, novel products, including those for the treatment of acute pain and moderate- to-severe chronic pain. As it did so, Endo also created an internal specialty sales force. By 2003, the company grew to nearly 500 employees. This growth and the company's success in the pharmaceutical industry did not go unnoticed. During that same year, co-founders Carol Ammon and Mariann MacDonald were honored with the Greater Philadelphia Ernst & Young ``Entrepreneur of the Year'' award in the Health Sciences category, and Endo was named ``Company of the Year'' by the Eastern Technology Council. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. has further distinguished itself by being voted one of the ``100 Best Corporate Citizens'' by Business Ethics Magazine and reaching #35 on Business Weeks' ``Hot Growth Companies'' list. Endo's mission clearly incorporates a humanitarian as well as a corporate vision. The company contributes to Community Volunteers in Medicine, a Chester County, PA organization that provides health care to people who don't qualify for Medicaid and do not have health care insurance. Endo began contributing to this organization in 2004 at the $15,000 level and has increased their contribution each year. In addition, the company has given over $300,000 to the Susan G. Komen Foundation; and been a sponsor of the Komen Pink Tie Ball and Komen Race for the Cure. Also, since 2002, Endo employees have participated in the MS150, a 150 mile bicycle race to raise funds for the Multiple Sclerosis Society. Individual pledges, a corporate contribution and matching gift from Carol Ammon, one of Endo's co-founders, also have contributed to this event. Now in its tenth year, the company employs more than 1,300 individuals in the United States, including laboratories in Westbury, New York, and Boulder, Colorado. Endo's is a highly skilled workforce, as 98 percent of its employees hold a bachelor's degree or higher. The company is further solidifying its presence in Pennsylvania and Chadds Ford, in particular, recently breaking ground on a new 48,600-square- foot building at its headquarters. This new building in Chadds Ford will have space for an additional 175 employees, and is expected to be completed next year. However, Endo is growing in other areas, too, and positioning itself to be the leading pain company in the world. Endo's President and CEO, Peter Lankau, says the company is indeed focused on the future and continuing to provide patients and physicians with clinically innovative pain therapy products. Madam Speaker, again, I would like to congratulate Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., and especially its employees at the Chadds Ford headquarters, for the company's accomplishments. In just ten years Endo has realized the vision of its founders. It is an entrepreneurial success and is recognized as an outstanding corporate citizen. It is now the world leader in developing pain therapy products focused on patients' and physicians' needs. I, for one, look forward to the promise of the next ten years for Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., and its talented individuals in Chadds Ford and throughout the nation.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, there is a bipartisan ``way ahead'' in Iraq if viewed in terms of progress for America's security and not solely Iraq's, with a strategy that focuses on our natural interests in this conflict, not just the interests of Iraqis. Our troops have served our country courageously and brilliantly, but our engagement in Iraq has degraded our security, pushing our Army to the breaking point so that it cannot confront other pressing security concerns at home and abroad. My military service as a 3-star admiral, having led an aircraft carrier battle group in combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and served as Director of the Navy's antiterrorism unit, convinces me that an inconclusive, open-ended involvement in Iraq is not in our security interests. Ending this war is necessary, but how we end it is of even greater importance both for our security and our troops' safety. These two considerations, our security and our troops' safety, are the dual catalysts for a bipartisan discussion to end this war. First, America's security. Our Army will rapidly unravel if redeployment from Iraq does not begin before spring, 2008. Today, 40 percent of all U.S. Army equipment is in Iraq. There is no Army unit now at home in a state of readiness able to deploy anywhere another contingency might occur in the world. Second, the safety of our troops. Redeployment from Iraq will be lengthy. Moving 160,000 troops and 50,000 civilians and closing bases are logistically challenging, especially in conflict. To ensure our troops' safety, it will take at least a year, probably 15 to 24 months. The ``long pole in the tent'' is the closure or turnover of 65 forward operating bases. Conservatively, it takes 100 days to close one forward operating base. It will be important to balance how many to close at one time, with calculations about surrounding strife, and the fact that Kuwait's receiving facilities to clean and package vehicles for customs and shipment back to the United States can handle only two to 2\1/2\ brigade combat teams at a time, with the fact that there are currently 40 brigade combat team equivalents in Iraq today. Redeployment is the most vulnerable of all military operations, particularly because this one will be down a single road leading from Iraq to Kuwait, ``Road Tampa.'' Such vulnerability is why, in 1993, after ``Black Hawk Down'' in Somalia, it took 6 months to extract our 6,300 troops safely and only then after inserting an additional 19,000 troops to protect their redeployment. And what of Iraqi stability in the aftermath of our redeployment, which affects the region and, thus, our security? Because the redeployment of troops will take a long time, we can have a bipartisan approach to Iraq's security. To do this, we Democrats must turn from pure opposition to this war and an immediate withdrawal and begin to help author a comprehensive regional security plan that accepts the necessity for a deliberate redeployment. In turn, the Republican leadership must accept that the U.S. Government must also work diplomatically with Iran and Syria during this deliberate redeployment. While these two countries are currently involved destructively in this war, according to our intelligence community, these nations want stability in Iraq after our departure and, therefore, can play a constructive role. I have consistently argued that a planned end to our military engagement is necessary and that such a date certain deadline would force Iraqi leaders to assume responsibility, providing Iran and Syria the incentive to prevent violence otherwise caused by our departure. Our troops could either return home or deploy to regions such as Afghanistan, where terrorists pose a threat to our security, while others remain at our existing bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and on aircraft carrier and amphibious groups to ensure our interests in the region as we did prior to invading Iraq. Because our Army must either start a lengthy redeployment or risk unraveling, we have the catalyst for a bipartisan agreement to end this war with a stable Iraq if we also work with Iran and Syria to meet this goal. However, this opportunity for a bipartisan congressional approach to convince the President to use diplomacy to bring about a stable accommodation in Iraq once our troops redeploy will undoubtedly require an initial redeployment deadline that is a ``goal'' instead of a ``date certain.'' Therefore, despite my continuing belief that a date certain is the best leverage we have to change Iraqis' and regional nations' behavior, when faced with the otherwise assured consequences of a bipartisan stalemate on resolving the tragic misadventure in Iraq, this compromise is needed for America's security.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise before you to honor Jack Holefelder on his retirement from presidency of the Delaware County Chamber of Commerce, a post he has held for the past 26 years. Mr. Holefelder has overseen an over 500% increase in chamber membership such that the chamber is now the third largest chamber in Pennsylvania. Over this period, the Delaware County Chamber of Commerce has twice won the Chamber of the Year award. Along with his decades of exemplary leadership over the chamber, Mr. Holefelder has been an active member of the community. He has headed or been a member of numerous committee organizations including Chairman of the Delaware County Fair; Chairman of the Chester Housing Authority Advisory Board; Chairman of Red Cross, Heart Fund, Cancer Society, and March of Dimes fund raising; President of the Delaware County Education Foundation; Board Member of the Delaware County Hero Scholarship Fund; Board Member of the Southeastern Delaware County United Way; Board Member of the Delaware County Crime Commission; a member of the Neumann College Board of Trustees; and a coach in the Aston and Middletown Little League and Girl's Soccer league. He has raised over five million dollars for local charities and special projects. Most impressive of all Mr. Holefelder's many achievements is his commitment to the Rotaplast International program. Since 2002, Mr. Holefelder has participated in three trips to Peru and one trip to India in support of that exceptional program. Dedicated to providing free reconstructive cleft-palate operations and treatment for children in need worldwide, Mr. Holefelder and his colleagues have been ambassadors of goodwill to hundreds of families who will never forget the life-changing nature of their kindness. Mr. Holefelder is a published author, a TV and radio personality, and an entrepreneur. He is a recipient of the U.S. Air Force Commendation Medal for service in Vietnam, the Red Cross David Henderson Humanitarian Award, Glen Riddle Rotary Community Service Award, and March of Dimes Lifetime Achievement Award among numerous other awards and recognitions. Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in honoring Jack Holefelder, a pillar of the community and a man who represents the very best of the United States of America at home and abroad.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Washington Fire Company No. 1 on the dedication of its firehouse and the housing of its equipment. The station will be home to the fire company's new 2007 E-One Rescue Pumper as well as its 1999 E-One Ladder truck and its 1990 E-One Rescue Pumper. It will also house the pride and joy of the company, a beautiful, fully restored 1924 American LaFrance Pumper. This new station is twice the size of the previous station, and will allow the members of the Company to more effectively protect the Borough of Conshohocken, which they have proudly served since 1874. From a small hose house 128 years ago to a new modern facility with a banquet hall, the Washington Fire Company has remained a staple of the Borough of Conshohocken. The fire company's mission has expanded over time to include not only protecting the community, but also educating it. The company hosts an annual ``Fire Prevention Show'' that teaches the community about fire prevention and what to do in the case of a fire emergency. The members of Washington Fire Company No. 1 selflessly serve the community while balancing their full-time careers and families. Through the years, their names and faces have changed, but the commitment and pride with which they serve the community has persevered. I ask everyone to join me in commending the members of the Washington Fire Company, past and present, and to congratulate them on the dedication of their new firehouse.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, our Nation will soon commemorate the 230th Anniversary of the Battle of Brandywine. Let me take this opportunity to relate the importance of that battle, the largest land battle of the Revolutionary War, and to remember the brave soldiers who fought for the independence of our country. In 1777, the British army campaigned to control Philadelphia, which was then the capital of the newly-declared United States of America. British General William Howe and his troops approached Philadelphia through the Chesapeake, landing in Elkton, Maryland in early September of that year. American General George Washington was confident that his army would secure the capital city. On September 9, 1777, American troops were stationed along the Brandywine River, guarding the fords. Washington's strategy was to force a fight at Chadds Ford, where the Americans would have the advantage. On September 9, a small portion of British troops marched from Kennett Square as if they would battle the Americans at Chadds Ford. However, the majority of British troops this time marched north to cross the river at a ford unknown to Washington and his army. The battle began in the early morning on September 11. Washington, believing that all of Howe's army would fight at Chadds Ford, was unprepared when British troops arrived at the right flank of the American line. He ordered his troops to take the high ground, near the Birmingham Friends Meetinghouse to defend their position. However, British troops were already stationed nearby, and the Americans were unable to secure these grounds. General Howe's army soundly defeated the Americans due to their superior position and the surprise of their attack. By night, Washington's troops were forced to retreat to Chester. Despite being outnumbered and outmaneuvered, Washington's troops fought valiantly. The American Congress was able to escape from Philadelphia to safety in Lancaster, and then York, PA. Military supplies were also removed from the capital city before the impending British takeover. On September 26, 1777, British forces marched unopposed through the city of Philadelphia. This takeover proved of little strategic value, however. Washington's troops regrouped. The General wrote to John Hancock that night, ``Notwithstanding the misfortune of the day, I am happy to find the troops in good spirits; and I hope another time we shall compensate for the losses now sustained.'' Congress sent reinforcements, strengthening the American army. Washington's troops successfully defended the military supplies in Reading. On June 18, 1778, British troops abandoned Philadelphia and the city returned to American control.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise before you to honor Carl Ullrich on his recent induction in the Army's Sports Hall of Fame and his lifetime of service to our Nation's young athletes and his service to our Nation both in U.S. Navy during World War II and in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean Conflict. Mr. Ullrich was the first civilian director of athletics at the Military Academy at West Point serving in that capacity from 1980 to 1990. He oversaw five winning football seasons, the program's first three bowl game appearances, and negotiated a deal to ensure the winner of the Commander in Chiefs Trophy was invited to a post-season bowl game. Mr. Ullrich has a long career in mentoring and teaching our youth and young adults, starting in 1952 with a coaching position at the Friends Academy in New York and includes serving as a couch at Irvington High School and Newark Academy in New Jersey, freshman crew coach at Cornell University, varsity crew coach at Columbia University and Boston University, and as an assistant commandant at the Sanford Naval Academy. He served as athletic administrator at the Naval Academy for 11 years where he supervised the areas of admissions, counseling, recruiting, eligibility, Congressional liaison, and NCAA and AlAW policy, and coached the Navy varsity crew for 6 years, winning the Eastern Intercollegiate championship in 1971. Additionally, Mr. Ullrich has served as athletic director of Western Michigan University, the President of the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference, and in many capacities for the NCAA and ECAC. He has also served as the initial Executive Director of the Patriot League, and most recently as the Athletic Director of St. Andrews Presbyterian College. He was awarded the Eastern College Athletic Conference's James Lynah Distinguished Achievement Award in 1995 in recognition of his outstanding success in his career and his extraordinary contribution in the interest of intercollegiate athletics. Mr. Ullrich served his country in active duty in both World War II and the Korean Conflict reaching the rank of Captain in the U.S. Marine Corps. Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in honoring Carl Ullrich, an inspiration to over five decades of this nation's young athletes and an exemplary role-model of service and dedication for them to follow.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This past weekend I had the opportunity with an 82-year-old airman to sit down with him and awarded him, after some work had been done, with the Distinguished Flying Cross. And he so proudly opened up his charts and the maps that he had flown over Europe back in World War II. And as a Navy officer, I came to realize the quite close bond we had as he proudly then pointed to his log book and said, this was the ship, as they called their aircraft, that we were on during those missions. But what I want to speak about is that wonderful passage in the book by Tom Wolf, ``The Right Stuff.'' In it, as he talks about aviators, he spoke about how they take off and they fly, and often, particularly as the 50s, 60s and 70s occurred, they would often find themselves, all of a sudden, at some critical moment, where through their skill, their determination they managed to pull themselves out of a dangerous situation at the last yawing moment. But then Tom Wolf went on and he said that's not really the key to these men and women. He said, then they took off again the next day and did the same thing, and the next day and the next day, and every day after that, just like clawing up a pyramid, never knowing each time whether they would or would not be able to pull it out at the last crying moment. That, Tom Wolf said, is the right stuff. So I rise in commemoration of the Air Force and in a very joint way who has done so much for the security of our Nation. Without a question, they have the right stuff.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman and ranking member. I very much appreciate your support on this bill, and I rise to speak highly on it and thank, in particular, my colleague Mr. John Hall who is also an original cosponsor. I believe this bill has a lot to do with enhancing global competitiveness of American small businesses. In fact, in May I held an economic summit in my district in partnership with the U.S. Export Assistance Center in Philadelphia. The day's program aimed to provide business owners with information about the resources and services provided by the local, State and Federal governments. The panel that day particularly focused on how to help local small businesses export their products to foreign markets, as well as on how firms interested in expanding their businesses overseas could obtain trade financing. I was extremely encouraged by the number of small business owners interested in expanding their business into overseas markets during this summit. However, this should come as no surprise since small businesses make up 97 percent of all exporters and have contributed greatly to the growth of exports overseas. There is promise in the economic impact of trade among small businesses. For example, with assistance from the Philadelphia Export Assistance Center, Nielsen-Kellerman, a small business in my district that designs and manufactures waterproof electronics for use in the rowing industry, worked with trade specialists to expand globally and since 2001 has signed nine dealer agreements in Germany and has successfully sold products in Southeast Asia, Europe, Central America and the Middle East. The firm continues to utilize the Export Assistance Center for business counseling and guidance to further expand their business overseas. However, I also saw during my district's economic summit that small exporters also face numerous challenges, such as higher transaction costs, than do big business. They assume greater risk than larger exporters, and they experience burdensome customs requirements which limit their access to foreign markets, impeding small firms from maximizing their full potential to expand their enterprises. This legislation not only addresses the need for a focus on assisting in overseas trading by calling for an annual trade strategy to increase exports but also, Mr. Speaker, enhancing the level of export assistance by increasing access to capital and establishing programs for trade adjustment assistance to help small firms adjust to ever-changing global economic conditions and demands. I believe the SBA Trade Act is comprehensive legislation that is critical to the economic security of our Nation and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, through my 31 years in the military, I came to understand throughout this world how much we are respected for the power of our military, for the power of our economy, and admired for the power of our ideals. After I became head of the Navy's antiterrorism unit after 9/11, I came to truly understand the value of data mining facilitated by eavesdropping properly done. But I relearned the lesson I had learned at the White House as Director of Defense Policy, as intelligence officers came forward to the President, that seldom does one need a one-armed intelligence officer. In their gray world, it is often on the one hand, but on the other hand. Therefore, you often press for more intelligence. When I went into Afghanistan with the CIA and we had millions of dollars to buy loyalty on that ground, we wanted all the intelligence. But I know the FISA system, and that is giving to them the ability to give it. What we did is we met with my colleague from the Navy, Admiral McConnell. We facilitated the ease by which we could do this. The bill we voted on last night is the right bill. It gives the proper balance. It gives the ability to the President to come and do his intelligence seeking, even coming later if he must, to the FISA court. My concern is what Benjamin Franklin said: Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, this is a tough bill. We found out after Vietnam that, instead of rotating our forces, if we had just stayed there with the same force, as we did in World War II, our fighting would have been more effective and less lives would have been lost. But this war is different. We found out in World War II that, on average, a man in that combat did 182 days of combat, horrific combat, but 182 days on average. In this war, in those 15 months, our men and women are overseas in Iraq. Every day of those 15 months those men and women go outside the wire, into combat. This is a different war. I am taken, first and foremost, by the reports that more are coming home with post-traumatic syndrome. I am, second, taken with our constitutional responsibility to make rules for the government and regulation of our armed services. And then third, I'm taken by the waiver, the national security waiver that is placed within this bill that our national command authorities, the President and the Secretary of Defense may waiver for national security reasons the requirement to send troops forward if they have even been home less than they were in combat. Our national command authorities every day must approve every deployment. They must, therefore, only turn to us and say it is a national requirement that they must redeploy less than they have been over there in Iraq. This is a different war, and I am glad to see we are taking seriously our responsibility to provide for the rules, the regulation, the government of our armed services in what is truly a different war and yet give our President the right to ensure that the risks are weighed for a national security waiver.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 781, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I asked to speak this evening on SCHIP, the bill that was passed today. Unfortunately, I was unable to be there during the day here on the House floor during the debate, but I wanted to speak about the importance of it to me personally and why I think it is important to this Nation. Two years ago this month, or just around this month, having served 31 years in our military, my 4-year-old daughter, my only daughter, was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and given 3 to 9 months to live. We began a series of brain operations and then chemotherapy. Down the street in Children's Hospital, we began that treatment, and about January when we were done and began to think about what to do with the rest of my life, having then retired from the military to live with my daughter on an oncology ward, it became very important to me to remember what I saw when we began that chemotherapy treatment. We were in a small room like anybody else who has been in a hospital. We had a roommate. It was a young 2\1/2\-year-old boy here from Washington, D.C., who had entered the hospital that day because he had been diagnosed with acute leukemia. And for about 6 hours as my daughter was undergoing her first chemotherapy, vomiting about, as I remember, 19 times that day, we could not help but overhear through this thin curtain that separated the bed from my daughter's social workers who came and went, working with the parents of that young child to see if he might remain there in the hospital to be treated for his cancer. And they had to do that because he was uninsured. Here I had been in the navy for 31 years, and the one time I had a personal challenge, and I had many professional challenges, this Nation gave my daughter an opportunity. I took her pathology slides everywhere, Children's, Mass General, John Hopkins, Children's in Philadelphia, and then we sought the best out to give her an opportunity, having been challenged for just 3 to 9 months to live. I went away to an 11-month war and never worried that my daughter and my wife would be taken care of. I don't understand how that young child, 2\1/2\ years old, sitting in that room next to my daughter did not have the same opportunity. Where was the Nation for him? So, therefore, I just rose to speak today that why I entered the race for Congress after 31 years in the military was not, as many assumed, because of the Iraqi war, that tragic misadventure, but rather, it was to give every child the same opportunity mine had. Hubert Humphrey said it well: The moral test of a 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. But for me, it was more personal. This Nation was here for me. I owe it. And I intend to pay it back by continuing to work for programs like SCHIP where that young 2\1/2\-year-old boy, uninsured, had to wait for the social workers to convince an administration that he might have the opportunity to live. That's why SCHIP to me is so important.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. I am here to speak about Iraq. Americans are tired of this war, but at the same time they want to secure the best of the situation for the perception of security not just in that region but globally. I watch the Republicans and our concern as Democrats is that they believe that our military might provide a solution in Iraq. I look at my party and my concern is that we need to stop the impure opposition and to begin to help craft, to help author an implementable, comprehensive Middle East/Persian Gulf security plan. But to do that, we obviously need a union with our Republican brethren. I honestly believe that when people talk about taking care of our troops, the belief is not that we use them in war when necessary but where and how we use them. There are the elements right now to begin to come together in a union to craft a comprehensive end to this tragic misadventure that can meet the goals of both sides. First, we have an army that is strained and by next April we will be at the point of almost irreparable harm for some years to come. Second, we know that in order to redeploy that army out of Iraq, it will take time. When the Soviet Union left Afghanistan with 120,000 troops, it took them 9 months and because of the ill preparation, 500 died on the way. We have 160,000 troops, 100,000 contractors. We must work well to get them to redeploy safely. They can only take in Kuwait two to two and a half brigades at a time. Forty combat equivalent brigades are in Iraq. The math comes out to a minimum of 18 to 24 months. Third, because of that time line we can use the last arrow in our arsenal we have not used, diplomacy. The road out of Iraq is through Tehran, Iran. If we have the ability as we slowly redeploy to bring together Iran to work for stability, we can have a comprehensive solution to this conflict.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, ending this tragic misadventure in Iraq is necessary but insufficient. How and the means by which we end it is of even greater importance, both to the safety of our troops and to our overall strategic security. First, our troops. It took us 6 months to extract 6,000 troops out of Somalia after Blackhawk Down, and we inserted 17,000 personnel to guard the retreat. We have not only 160,000 troops in Iraq, but over 100,000 civilians. We must ensure their safety, and that will take approximately 1 year. Second, that time line of a year is actually the change in strategy that will ensure that we have an aftermath, if we pursue diplomacy with Iran and Syria, to bring about an unfailed state. Recently the intelligence community said Iran does not want a failed government. Therefore, we must approach the end of this war with a strategic approach working with the Republicans. This is our country's war, because the aftermath of its consequences are so great and it requires a strategic end.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 633, I was detained while picking up my 6-year-old daughter who had become ill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life of a husband, father, grandfather, great grandfather, brother, son, veteran, and community leader--Rabbi Nardus Groen, who passed away on Wednesday, June 13 after living a full life of community service. Rabbi Nardus Groen was born in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, on December 18, 1919 and grew to become a hero and a family man. As a member of the Dutch Underground during World War II, Rabbi Groen was captured by German soldiers multiple times and heroically managed to escape each time. One particular act of heroism occurred in 1940 when Groen was guarding a Jewish hospital in the Netherlands during its evacuation. Although the patients had escaped, Groen was protecting a group of Jewish nurses as the Nazis approached. Selflessly, he slipped on a Red Cross arm band and escorted the nurses into a room. When the Nazis asked who was in the room, Groen explained that he was caring for patients with Scarlet Fever. Fearing the illness, the Nazis spared the Jewish nurses, including Groen's future wife, the former Sipora Rodriguez-Lopes. After World War II, Rabbi Nardus Groen served at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina under the American Marine Corps. Following his stint with the Marines, Groen worked as a psychologist at a Jewish orphanage for Holocaust survivors. He helped countless youths cope with one of the greatest tragedies in human history. Two years later, he began to serve as a rabbi at the oldest congregation in the Western Hemisphere in Surinam. Groen led a mixed Sephardic Ashkenazic congregation in Surinam until 1952 when he served as a rabbi in Einhoven, the Netherlands. He became one of the foremost leaders of his community, uniting two different cultures in one synagogue. Nardus Groen moved to Lansdale, PA as a renowned rabbi in 1963 where he served as Beth Israel Synagogue's rabbi for 13 years. He provided guidance and spiritual leadership to Beth Israel's community, helping his community grow to the vibrant Jewish center it is today. Groen moved back to Europe and retired in 1986 as the chief rabbi for the eastern six provinces of the Netherlands. He lived what he preached and will be remembered across the Netherlands. After his retirement, Rabbi Groen and his loving wife Sipora lived in the Netherlands and Delray Beach, Florida after his retirement before permanently settling in Florida in 2005. Rabbi Groen spent his last years as a loving father to Marcel Groen, Leo Groen, Ruben Groen, David Groen, and Debra Groen; a loving brother to Meyers Groen and Sophia Groen; a loving grandfather and great grandfather to twelve grandchildren and six great grandchildren; and a loving husband to Sipora Groen. Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in honoring and remembering Rabbi Nardus Groen. Through his hard work, Rabbi Groen has spread hope across three continents and will be remembered as a strong leader, a caring mentor, and a true mensch.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. I can be and am disappointed in this bill we will vote on today, intended to reduce U.S. troops in Iraq. It aims to begin the reduction, but leaves an unspecified limited presence of troops in Iraq by a deadline of April 1, 2008, a level of troops and their missions to be determined by President Bush. It does no harm, but how much good? One might say it is a step in the right direction even with such significant limitations, but I have concern. Congress is, as it should be, close to ending this tragic misadventure; however, ending this war is necessary but insufficient. How we end it and by what means is of even greater importance for our troops' safety and our own security. A Congress intent upon mandating such a new security policy through force of law owes a careful explanation to the country why and how it is to be done, including dealing with what would occur in the aftermath. We don't do that here. I will vote for this bill for it does no harm, perhaps some good. But I will do so reluctantly, for it does little to define the how and why within a strategic approach of a date within a year that we can redeploy from Iraq and leave behind the possibility of an unfailed Iraqi state. We owe such an explanation since it is us by force of law that will end this tragic misadventure.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, even for those convinced the surge in Iraq is a mistake, the manner in which we implement a decision to leave that country is critical to our Nation. Therefore, any Congress mandating a new security policy through force of law owes a careful explanation to the country why and how it is to be done, including dealing with what would occur in the aftermath. However much Americans may agree with us a desire to reduce U.S. forces and withdraw them from Iraq quickly, this Nation must face the alternative of what will happen in the region once that redeployment is done by a force of law. We must remember it took us approximately 6 months to withdraw a small number of troops just from Somalia. We have 160,000 troops in Iraq and over 100,000 contractors, but the time line of about a year that is needed for a safe redeployment also works well to protect our regional interests in a strategic approach to end this war. It provides the time needed for a strategy of regional accommodation to take effect with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, a strategy that rightly relies upon the long-term interests in a stable aftermath. Therefore, ending this war is necessary but insufficient. How we end it and by what means is even of greater importance for our troops' safety and our own security.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, even for those convinced the surge in Iraq is a mistake, or at a point where our goals cannot realistically be attained, the manner in which we implement a decision to leave that country is critical to our Nation. How the United States manages its transition from a major war to the aftermath of our withdrawal is crucial for our strategic security. And therefore, a Congress mandating a new security policy through the force of law owes a careful explanation to the country why and how it is to be done, including dealing with what would occur in the aftermath. Americans may be tired of this war, but as a group they still expect it to be brought to an end that salvages as much as possible from the situation and protects our broader interests in the region and the world. This strategic approach is not just about ``getting the troops home.'' Rather, the important concept to pursue is a strategic redeployment from Iraq that enhances our security by giving us the leverage to begin to unify Iraqis and bring about a regional accommodation that works toward that nation's stability. However much Americans may desire to reduce forces in Iraq quickly, this Nation must still face the aftermath of what will happen in the region after redeployment by the force of law. And while some may try to characterize this as President Bush's war, it is the whole country's war in terms of how its consequences will affect us. For example, a careless redeployment due to haste most endangers our 160,000 troops and estimated over 100,000 civilian contractors in Iraq. Withdrawal is when military forces are at their most vulnerable, something our Nation paid heed to when it took the 6 months necessary to redeploy less than 10,000 troops safely from Somalia in the 1990s. In Iraq, there is one road to Kuwait for thousands of convoys and much planning left to do for such a redeployment to occur safely. And some ideas for a drawdown will prove less viable than some assume. For instance, maintaining residual forces to train Iraqis may well not work for the safety of U.S. troops embedded in an Iraqi military whose loyalty is suspect at best and fighting motivation questionable. Would we then need to retain large combat forces for their protection, and if so, how many? Let's therefore understand the full limitations of such ideas before supporting them without careful strategic thought. Such strategic considerations suggest that the precise shape of a strategy to redeploy matters a great deal. Responsibility should be assigned: To the Iraqis to assume accountability for their country; to regional nations to demonstrate accommodations towards stability; and to Congress for the consequences of the aftermath which it will have dictated. A realistic timeline of a year that is needed for a safe redeployment of our troops also serves well to protect our regional interests. It provides the time needed for a strategy of regional accommodation to take effect with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, a strategy that rightly relies upon their long-term interest in a stable aftermath. But in the end, we most importantly must make it clear that we will not be made hostage to the permission of our Iraqi friends. This is the crux of the strategic approach to enhancing our global strategic security: That while Iraqis will have ultimate say over their country, we as a Nation need to send a strong message that we are no longer willing to support it in a futile pursuit. Only by a date that defines the end of our open-ended commitment can we force the Iraqis and regional nations to assume responsibility in working towards a stable Iraq. We will then, in the eyes of the world, leave with the Iraqis and regional nations having clearly helped choose the aftermath by their decisions or indecision. We cannot afford an inconclusive, open-ended involvement within a country where the long-term security benefits do not match what we need to reap, and where the trade-off in benefits of not focusing elsewhere is harming our strategic security, including a significant negative impact on the readiness of our Armed Forces here at home. Nor can we afford a nonstrategic approach to the end to our involvement in this war, also undermining our future strategic security. Rather than leading to a spiral of violence, redeploying from Iraq under a strategic timeline of a year 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 nation, but remaining with strength in the region. The needed accommodation will only come about when the Iraqi political leaders are forced to take the difficult political steps required to cease the violence in their country, such as building cooperation among competing sects and sharing oil revenues among all regions in Iraq. And regional nations' incentives, particularly Syria's and Iran's, change toward stability when the United States is no longer there in the midst of a 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 in a proxy battle to their detriment. Ending this war is necessary but insufficient, and Mr. Speaker, how we end it and by what means is of even greater importance for the troop's safety and our own security.