Joe Sestak

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak for a few minutes about Iraq. Every Member of the House brings their experience with them. Mine happens to be 31 years in the military, including leading men and women in war. I have operated with the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, entered the DMZ in North Korea, dealt with the Iranians at sea in the Persian Gulf. When I saw us about to go into Iraq, I was concerned. I felt it was a tragic misadventure, not because of Iraq solely by itself, but because of what it would do to our strategic security around this globe. I flew with my battle group over Iraq just prior to the war, after having left the war in Afghanistan. I have always been taken in the military by the power of our diplomacy, the power of our diplomats, because they are the ones who often have prevented us from having to use our military. I honestly believe there is a way to redeploy from Iraq that does not mean just getting out nor just bringing the troops home. Those are the wrong words. Iraq is a set piece in a strategic environment around this world that the United States has interest in. And there is a way to end this tragic misadventure, to redeploy out of Iraq so we might place our men and women where they need to be in Afghanistan, the western Pacific, and here at home to improve the readiness of our Army that has not one, not one active Guard or Reserve unit that is in a state of readiness to deploy anywhere to any other contingency in this world. And that strategy is really brought about by changing the behavior, in particular, of Iran, who I have operated with at sea, and Iraq and Syria, and the other nations in that region. We will not do that by doubling down once again on a bad bet with a surge of military forces. I know. I have watched it happen before. This can only be resolved by a strategy that sets a date, a date within a year by which we will redeploy out of Iraq, because that date is not just for ending this war, it has the value of a different strategy to leave an unfailed state, as Iran, recognizing that we will no longer be in that state, but we will remain in the region at our bases that we do have in Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates; and our carrier battle group and our amphibious ready group in that region because we have interests there. But by that date we change the behavior of Iran who does not want to deal by itself with the 2 million Iraqis who have been dislocated from their homes and have yet to overflow their borders, as 2 million others have. And Syria, that is Sunni, does not want as it fuels, after we leave there, a civil war, would be fueling the Sunnis against the Shia that the Iranians might be supporting. Neither nation wants a proxy war. If we work diplomatically with a date certain, because they don't want us to remain in that nation, we have the ability to bring to the table the interested parties who can work on the extreme elements in that nation, Iran and Syria; and we deal with the center, the government of Baghdad, with a date certain that makes them recognize they must also step up to the plate and assume responsibility for the country which they have done and presently have to do as we keep a lid politically and militarily on a simmering pot. There is a strategy which I believe we need to pursue, Republican and Democrat together, that sets a date of approximately a year, which gives us time to safely redeploy. Because, remember, it took us 6 months to redeploy out of Somalia with only about 8,000 troops, when we have 160,000 in Iraq with over 100,000 U.S. contractors. We need time to safely redeploy with a strategy that works to bring Iran and Syria to the table because they have interests in accommodating stability as we remain in that region because of our interests, providing air cover if necessary from above, from bases outside or Special Forces from outside, as we begin to address our other security interests around the world and here at home.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. I appreciate that from my colleague from New Hampshire. I want to comment upon what all three of you brought out, and I thought brought out well. I would like to speak about it from my experience. I remember being on the ground in Afghanistan 2 months after that war began. I had the opportunity during a very short period of time to see what needed to be done. I left, brought back an aircraft carrier battle group for that war. Then we brought that battle group into the Persian Gulf for what we thought would be the starting run of the Iraqi conflict, and thinking what a tragic misadventure this would be. Those words were brought back to me as I thought about them 18 months later when I returned on the ground in Afghanistan and saw what had not been accomplished when I had known what had to be done. Because we diverted our attention and our resources, our Psychological Operations Forces, our Special Operations Forces, our Civil Affairs Forces and the attention of this Nation from Afghanistan to Iraq. To me, Afghanistan is prey to terrorists now once again as the Taliban regain control in parts of the southern provinces. And as we look inserting more forces back into Afghanistan, it is a poster child for what Iraq is really about. Iraq is a conflict, a civil war that has hurt our strategic security, and Afghanistan is merely a poster child for how the rest of our global security, as well as our homeland security, has suffered. There is not one army unit here at home, not one, Army, Guard, Active Guard or Reserve, that is in a state of readiness, that is committed to deploy anyplace in the world, as was said earlier, to any contingency elsewhere, from Korea to the Western Pacific, to help our other forces. Nor are we engaged in this world where the true center of gravity, strategic gravity for the United States is over the next decade, the Western Pacific, nor in Southeast Asia, nor in the Middle East. We have walked away from a strategy of engagement in this world as we have narrowed down to a conflict that is a civil war in one country. We need to step back and look at Iraq. Not as itself alone, but as a piece in our strategic template of how we look at the security environment across this world. Therefore, we need a change in this strategy. It is not about getting out of Iraq, as you well said. It is not just about returning our troops home. It is about a proper redeployment of our forces in order to enhance the security of America. I am not anti-war. I am pro-security. And the Democratic approach to this is one that recognizes and should recognize with the Republicans, because we need them and they need us, to define the end of what President Bush said on 10 January would not be an open-ended commitment. We need to define that end as a certain date, a specific date, approximately a year, that says to everyone in that region that behavior now has the incentive to change, because we will no longer be in Iraq providing the political and military cover for this civil war to continue to simmer as the politicians in Iraq, failing to step up to the plate because they are pursuing their personal fiefdoms, their personal ambitions in the 32 ministries that they run, as we provide their security. And of great importance is Iran. When I was there with Senator Hagel a few months ago, everyone talked about the undue influence of Iran. Why not? We are in there bleeding, and that country wants us to bleed profusely. But if we were to set a date certain and to lead with confidence and engage Iran and Syria, to bring them to the table, our most senior political leader, U.S. political leader in Iraq said in response to a question, Iran does not want a failed state if we redeploy. It may not want the government we want, but it does not want a failed state. It doesn't want the 2 million Iraqi refugees there that have not already overflowed Iraq's borders to continue to flow over Iran's. Nor does it want a proxy war between it, the Shi'as in Iran supporting the Shia in Iraq, and the Sunnis in Syria supporting the Sunnis in Iraq. Once we are out, they don't want that war to ensue. So, what this future plan is to be about is a redeployment to enhance America's security by focusing where we need to in this world, beginning with Afghanistan, and a readiness here at home to bring it back up, to remain in that region on bases we already have and had before the conflict with troops there in Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, with a carrier battle group and amphibious ready group, and then deal with strength as we safely redeploy over a year's period, approximately. Because it took 6 months to redeploy out of Somalia with approximately 8,000 troops. We have got 160,000 in Iraq and over 100,000 U.S. civilian contractors to safely redeploy. As we do this with a date certain and incentive to change the behavior of the Iraqis so they step up to the plate, knowing they must assume responsibilities, it brings the Iranians and Syrians together, with us remaining in the region, to have a strategy that leads to diplomacy, so that there is an accommodation for a non-failed state. A region we have our interests in, we will remain there, and a state that has brought the parties together under the incentive of a date certain to work towards stability. I appreciate being able to make these comments which tonight's discussion I believe have really pointed us towards a strategic approach to a date to redeploy.

Mr. SESTAK. If I may add onto comments made by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein), the lack of a strategy of engagement by this administration where it became focused and stuck in Iraq has hurt our security tremendously. We outsourced our leadership during that period of time to others. North Korea went to China. We gave Iran to the European Union. And I can't tell you who we gave the Middle East to. Let's step back and look at what has occurred. A conflict in the Middle East where our Secretary of State stopped by for a photo-op and continued down, in the midst of that conflict, to Southeast Asia for a conference. Iran, bent now upon a nuclear weapon. And North Korea, as you referenced, during that period of time as they called General Powell back, who tried to continue the negotiations that the Clinton administration had left the Bush administration with an agreed framework not to have a nuclear reactor continue to produce fissile material. And a missile moratorium. They now at least have seven more nuclear weapons, if they care to build them. And they've exploded one of them. And they've broken the missile moratorium and only belatedly have they actually gone back now and agreed to the same agreement that the Clinton administration had. Iraq is such a tragedy. Iran, when General Ikenberry was leaving, our three-star general from Afghanistan, he was asked, does Iran work toward our interest there? The answer was yes. You want stability in Afghanistan. It doesn't want the Taliban there or al Qaeda. So we step back and say engage, engage with consequences Iran, Syria, give them a date that we won't be in that state of Iraq and they with Iraqis and Saudis and Jordan must step up so we can be about this world and ensure our security elsewhere. That's what this debate is about.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, a little over 5 years ago I was on the ground in Afghanistan and then returned with an Aircraft Carrier Battle Group. I then took that Aircraft Carrier Battle Group into the Persian Gulf for the precursor operations just before we began that war. After that war had commenced, I returned to the ground in Afghanistan 18 months later for a short period of time and saw what had not been done. We had accomplished so little compared to what might have been because we diverted our attention and our resources from our Civil Affairs Forces to our Special Operations Forces to the tragic misadventure in Iraq. I speak of Afghanistan because as it becomes prey to terrorists and as the Taliban has moved back into the southern provinces, it is a poster child for why I believe we must bring about a timetable for the end of the war in Iraq. That war has hurt U.S. security throughout this globe as well as here at home, yet not one Army unit, Active, Reserve or Guard is in a state of readiness that it could deploy anywhere in the world if another contingency were to occur. Never mind that we are failing to engage properly from the Western Pacific to Southeast Asia to the Middle East. There is a change in our strategy that can bring about an end to this tragedy without a failed state in Iraq. That is to set a date that is certain by which we would redeploy out of Iraq, because a date certain changes the structure of incentives within that region to change the behavior of other nations, in particular, Iran and Syria, that are involved destructively in this conflict because we are, to their delight, bleeding, bleeding profusely. I asked when I was there with Senator Hagel, our highest political officer there, does Iran want a failed state if we are to redeploy? His response was no. Therefore, we must have the confidence to set a date that is certain to redeploy out of Iraq, put our troops in Afghanistan, remain in the region on our bases in Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, or Aircraft Carrier Battle Group or Amphibious Ready Group, and bring others home, so we don't degrade the readiness of our forces, but have the competence to deal with Iran and Syria, bring them together with the Iraqis as they deal with the extreme elements and we deal with the middle. There is a saying in the Middle East, ``Insha'Allah,'' basically, ``God willing tomorrow.'' Tomorrow for U.S. security has been enough. A date certain, approximately a year, 9 months, to give those countries time to work with us to bring about the political decisions that must cease the civil war, to have the Iraqis step to the plate and assume responsibility in the 32 ministries that thus far have been personal fiefdoms for personal ambitions as we provide the political and military cover for them to go about their personal pursuits. This is a change that can only about be brought about not by doubling down on a bad military bet by more troops, but by enforcing a date certain within a timetable. And lastly, we should do so on an authorization bill. We should never again put our troops between us and the President. Being in the military is a dangerous business, but it doesn't have to be unsafe. Our business in the military has the dignity of danger, but you must provide them the bullets and the equipment they need to protect themselves, while having an authorization bill provide the date certain by which no forces in Iraq would remain, or funding for them to remain would not be there. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time with the understanding that there is a strategic approach to end this conflict without a failed state in order to enhance U.S. security.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. With great respect to the Representative from Massachusetts, I'd be remiss not to say the following: I have seen in 31 years in our military, us be resisted throughout this world for the power of our economy and the power of our military. But I've watched us be admired for the power of our ideals. And the story I'm about to tell I saw many times over. In command of a small ship, I pulled into a country. A young officer got underway with us. As we pulled back in, after an overnight, he said Captain, you treat your men, enlisted men, different than we do. I said, what do you mean? He said, you treat them as though they're equal to you. I said, they say yes, sir or no, sir. He said, no, you treat them as though they're equal human beings. We don't. My only comment is, I have seen that so many times, that that picture of a GI with the candy bar is true. We do make mistakes. But I truly ask, don't close this school. Improve it. It has made mistakes. It is needed for engagement of a good men and women in a good military to show the ideals of our country.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Albert Wynn (D-MD) reached out to my office regarding becoming a co-sponsor of H.R. 2359, The SBA Entrepreneurial Development Programs Act of 2007. While we are unable to list Congressman Wynn as a co-sponsor since H.R. 2359 has already been placed on the Union Calendar, please know I consider Mr. Wynn a strong supporter and a co-sponsor of my legislation.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, a little over 5 years ago, I was in the war in Afghanistan, first on the ground for a very short period of time, and then I returned in charge of an aircraft carrier battle group. I saw a just war. Eighteen months later, I went back to Afghanistan, on the ground again, and saw what we had not accomplished because we had diverted our attention and our resources, our Special Forces, our Psychological Operation Forces, our Civil Affairs Forces, those and our attention were diverted to the tragic misadventure in Iraq. To me, Afghanistan is a poster child for what we have failed to do, and that is to remain engaged throughout this world, to be ready here at home in order to provide for a strong defense in support of our diplomacy of engagement. I am not antiwar. I am pro-security. And that is my concern, that Iraq is every day seriously degrading the strategic security of America. It is why I believe that there is a different strategy to redeploy from Iraq with a date that is certain, one that is out there in order to change the behavior of those nations in that region, give them a different incentive to work towards stability so that as we redeploy over a fixed timetable, we will leave behind a state that is fairly stable and that is not failing. I believe, having been in Iraq with Senator Hagel and having traveled throughout that country, that my belief is only reinforced that we can no longer provide the political and the military cover for the Iraqi leadership that has failed to step up to the plate, that has failed, being in control of 32 ministries in Baghdad, to stop pursuing personal ambition, establishing personal fiefdom as our soldiers provide them not only the military, but the political cover, not to take the challenging decisions that they must take. But I also believe, beyond that it is wrong to double-down on a bad bet by putting more troops into what is a civil war and that our military cannot resolve, the best military in the world, I believe a date certain also changes the incentives, the structure of incentives to change the behavior of Iran and Syria. Everywhere Senator Hagel and I went in Iraq we heard that Iran has undue influence. Yes, they do. We're bleeding, bleeding profusely. But when I asked our senior political leader there, if we were to redeploy, does Iran want a failed state? The answer was, no, they don't. With a date certain and the confidence the United States should have, having dealt with the Soviet Union, having dealt with the People's Republic of China, bringing it into the world's community, we should have the confidence to deal with Iran and Syria. Bring them together to work, with a date certain as their incentive toward working on the extreme elements in Iraq as we work in the center to bring about an unfailed state that can only be brought about by a date that is certain to redeploy. It took us 6 months to redeploy from Somalia, a much smaller contingency of forces. We have over 100,000 civilians in Iraq, in addition to our troops. I believe that the Democratic leadership, working with the Republicans, should work towards what the President said. We will not have an open-ended commitment. With a date certain, working together, we can, on an authorization bill, a bill that establishes a date beyond which no funding would be permitted for troops within Iraq, while we use appropriations bills to continue to fund our forces so that we do not ever again, as we did in the last month, place those forces, those whom we serve with, wearing the cloth of our Nation that we sent to war, that we never again play a game of chicken between us and the President. Being in the military is a dangerous business. It has, as someone said, the dignity of danger. It does not, however, have to be unsafe. Fund them fully with a date that is certain in our authorization bill by which we must redeploy, with enough timeline that the nations there can be brought together under U.S. leadership to bring about, by the only possible means that it can be done, diplomacy, strong diplomacy, as we remain in the region on our bases in Amman, Qatar, Bahrain, carrier battle groups, disengage, reengage in Afghanistan as well as here at home and elsewhere around this world in order to bring about a stronger security for America.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished chairwoman from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support a piece of legislation to enhance two critical Small Business Administration entrepreneurial development programs, the Small Business Development Centers and the Service Corps for Retired Executives. Serving as the Representative in a district that has been historically driven economically by vibrant local small businesses, I greatly appreciate and support the entrepreneurial development assistance that the SBA provides. We know that entrepreneurial development programs work. Businesses who receive SBA entrepreneurial assistance are twice as likely to succeed. And for every Federal dollar spent on entrepreneurial development, $7 are generated in increased tax revenue. But in the past 3 years, due to changes in our ever-changing globalizing economy, my district has lost 607 small businesses and one out of five manufacturing establishments. This is a trend that I am committed to reversing through fostering entrepreneurial development and creating the right set of conditions to help businesses flourish, stay and be attracted to my district, and I believe that supporting effective small business entrepreneurial development programs is a key part of that strategy. In 1980, Congress established the SBDC program to foster economic development by providing management, technical and research assistance to current and prospective small businesses. As you know, SBDCs provide services which include assisting small businesses with financial, marketing, production, organizational, engineering and technical problems and feasibility studies. SBDCs serve Americans with a desire to start their own venture but who lack the technical expertise associated with starting and running a successful business, and in the past decades, SBDCs have provided assistance to millions of entrepreneurs across America. The SBDC program also represents the effective and efficient use of allocated Federal moneys through public/private collaboration. To that end, SBDCs are funded by matching moneys provided by State legislatures, foundations, State and local chambers of commerce, public and private universities, vocational and technical schools and community colleges. In fact, sponsors' contributions have been increasingly exceeding the minimum 50 percent matching share, signifying greater participation among such groups and institutions. This is why I feel especially fortunate to have several Small Business Development Sub-Centers located at local universities, such as Widener University and the University of Pennsylvania, which provide critical business resources and technical assistance to small businesses in and around my district. I would like to stress that the core SBDC program has been extremely effective, but there are certain operational improvements that can be implemented to increase the flexibility of SBDCs. To that end, changes proposed in this legislation will ensure the quality of grant recipients to host SBDCs; help SBDCs maintain their autonomy from undue SBA interference; protect the confidentiality of SBDC clients; ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent as efficiently as possible by not using SBDC funds except for the sole purpose of business development; and allowing exemptions to the current cap on non-matching portability grants in the event of federally designated natural or human caused disasters. In addition to these operational changes, it is important to strengthen the SBDC core program, which successfully navigates entrepreneurs in managing their business, by establishing specific grant programs that will allow SBDCs to tailor their services. For instance, the Capital Access Initiative would establish grants to assist entrepreneurs in processing loan applications and obtaining private equity. An Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative would establish grants to allow SBDCs to become technology centers, to help market technologies and advanced projects to manufacturers. A disaster recovery program would establish grants to allow SBDCs to assist and coordinate the Federal response for small business disaster victims. The older entrepreneurial assistance program will target older Americans interested in transitioning to become business owners, while the Small Business Sustainability Initiative will promote the development and implementation of energy-efficient and clean energy improvements and technology. And an Affordable Health Care Initiative will help small business owners provide affordable health care insurance options to their employees, as the chairwoman mentioned. As I also spoke about, a second program which this legislation will address is SCORE, which provides entrepreneurs with free counseling assistance by former executives. SCORE provides a valuable service to small businesses, and I believe it will be even stronger with a provision to actively recruit volunteer mentors who will then provide a greater reflection of the social and economic diversity of those who will utilize SBA services, such as women and underrepresented minorities. I urge all my colleagues to support this important bill, which will greatly enhance the business development resources available to America's small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, as a husband, a father of a young daughter, the proud brother to 6 sisters, and having served alongside dedicated women in the military, I have seen first-hand the role that women play in economically strengthening American society. And this is why I rise today to support H.R. 2397, the SBA Women's Business Programs Act of 2007. Despite their significant contributions, women who work full time, year round, still only make 77 cents for every dollar made by their male counterparts, and women business owners, particularly those from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, face significant challenges resulting from inadequate community resources. Such resources include lack of access to capital, training resources, and networks of assistance. Today, women-owned firms are one of the fastest growing, successful small business sectors. The number of women-owned firms has increased at nearly double the rate of all firms, and those with socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds have grown at twice the rate of their counterparts and 6 times the rate of all U.S. firms. As the number of women entrepreneurs grows, particularly those from underserved communities, I believe it is critical that women have adequate and appropriate resources to prepare them for success in the marketplace. To that end, H.R. 2397 proposes to expand the agency's commitment to the Women's Business Centers (WBCs). WBCs provide in-depth, substantive, and outcome-oriented counseling, training and mentoring, resulting in substantial economic impact as measured by successful business start-ups, job creation and retention, and increased company revenues. They also provide financial, management, and marketing assistance to women small business owners. H.R. 2397 supports the growth of women small business owners by expanding entrepreneurial development assistance, particularly in low- income areas. The legislation dedicates funding to the opening of new WBCs in underserved areas, while implementing new benchmarks to ensure centers that continually receive funds are meeting performance requirements. These metrics, which include information on clients served and fundraising plans, will help to preserve resources for centers that have demonstrated success helping women entrepreneurs while promoting the expansion of assistance centers into underserved areas. H.R. 2397 is important legislation which promotes economic security for America's women, and I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you for yielding. I wanted to also speak about Iraq and our U.S. security. I've always felt that Iraq is a tragic misadventure. I can remember being on the ground for just a short period of time, 2 months after the war in Afghanistan began, and I saw what needed to be done. I brought an aircraft carrier battle group back, 30 ships, 15,000 sailors, Special Forces, SEALs, Marines. And then I went back on the ground 18 months later in Afghanistan and I saw what had not been accomplished because we diverted our attention, our resources, Special Forces, psychological forces, civil affairs forces to Iraq. I have always believed that not only is Iraq a tragic misadventure, but there is a strategy by which we can redeploy out of Iraq and not leave a failed state. I have never believed in doubling down on a bad bet, and that is what we have done by this most recent surge of forces into Iraq. The last 2 months have proven that. We have had more U.S. casualties among our forces than any 2-month period back to 2004. There is only one solution to Iraq, and that is not by continuing to flow forces there. It is by setting a date that is certain, a specific date by which everyone knows we will redeploy out of Iraq. I believe that this date certain, much like a tax policy here in the United States, is something that can begin to change the structure of incentives within Iraq and about the surrounding countries so that their behavior in Iraq, as well as in the critical Nation's of Iran and Syria, changes. If we are to set a date certain, the Iraqis will begin to understand that no longer will we continue to provide a political and a military cover for their 32 ministries in their government, that each is headed by an individual that is bent not upon Iraqi ambitions but personal ambitions to ensure that they consolidate as we provide them cover for their personal fiefdoms. We should let them know that we will no longer let them pursue these ambitions; that they must step up and assume personal, professional responsibility for the challenging political questions that must be addressed. When Senator Hagel and I went together to Iraq, we had the most senior Shia and Kurd leaders tell us that the reBaathification law, which would welcome back in the Sunnis, was something that was not only not important, but in their minds, it was appeasement. When will they begin to make the political decisions, to make the political accommodations to begin to reconcile their country so there can be stability? A date certain, at a certain length of time, my bill has said, for the last 4 months, at the end of December, is the one remaining leverage that we have in that region to also turn to Iran, who is involved destructively with Syria in this war, making us lead profusely while we are there, to change their incentives so that they understand that if we no longer keep this top on a simmering pot, that they will have to deal with the stability that will ensue. There are 4 million Iraqis that have been dislocated from their homes, 2 million of which have overflowed the borders. The Iranians and the Syrians do not want to have the remaining refugees come over their borders so that they have to deal with that instability. And, second, they do not want a proxy war between these two allied nations, Shia, Iran, on the one hand; and Sunnis, Syria, on the other, as they then would be left fueling different religious factions, a proxy war between themselves if we are not there. If the United States has the confidence to lead not just with its military but with diplomacy in that region, bringing Syria, Iran together to understand that the term ``insh'Allah'' that is so well known in the Middle East, God willing, tomorrow, will no longer be accepted by us. Give them a date certain by which we should redeploy, because we also need to remember the length of that time cannot for us be tomorrow. It took us 6 months to redeploy out of Somalia with a much, much smaller force. In Iraq, we have 160,000 troops and over 100,000 U.S. civilians. It will take us some months. But under a date certain, we can leave behind a strategy that can leave an unfailed state as we redeploy within that region to our bases in Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain, carry a battle group into Afghanistan and many to come home because we have an army that does not have one unit that is ready to deploy anywhere in this world from home because they are in such a low state of readiness. As I conclude, I ask this Congress, the Democratic party, to ensure they pursue the strategy that will leave not an unfailed state but a state that is stabilized to some degree as we work with the regional nations to also understand to never again put our troops between us and the President. Being in the military has the dignity of danger. It is a dangerous business, but it doesn't have to be unsafe. We must do this on an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. The moneys should flow for the safety of our troops as we do an authorization bill, set a date certain, 6, 9 months from today, and safely redeploy our troops as the one remaining leverage for those nations in that region to come together under U.S. confidence so that we can leave that nation, build up our strategic security again and focus on the rest of the world and here at home. And I am very grateful for the time.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. This is an excellent, and much needed piece of legislation. The right to vote is no doubt one of the cornerstones of our democracy, if not its greatest measurement. Through casting a vote, the voice of the people is made manifest in one simple, single act. President Johnson thought so highly of voting that he was quoted as saying it was ``the most powerful instrument ever devised by man.'' Consequently, every effort must be utilized to ensure this process is as efficient and as fail proof as it possibly can be. The 2000 elections undermined the confidence of voters as the saga of counting ballots and tallying votes lingered for months. As a result, the call for election reform implemented the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which provided funding for election administration and electronic voting machines. This act was a giant step in the right direction of assuring voter security, and voter confidence. However, the elections of 2004 exposed once again a call for further action. An estimated 50 million voters cast their ballots on the electronic voter machines that lacked a voter-verified paper audit trail. This leaves no mechanism to verify or resolve reported voter tallies. Simply put, this is unacceptable. Madam Speaker--H.R. 811 takes aim at resolving this very problem. It mandates an independent audit mechanism, which means that every voter will verify on a permanent paper ballot his or her vote. And in order to ensure this is carried out in the right manner, this bill provides necessary funding and oversight. With another Presidential election on the horizon, it is vitally important that we restore the confidence of voters across this nation. Every citizen must be heard, and thus their every vote must be recorded. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ensure that the voice of Americans is never again placed in doubt.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I commanded an aircraft carrier battle group of 30 ships off Afghanistan during the war from the Indian Ocean. We were told one day to take those 30 ships into the Persian Gulf, which some thought would be the running start to the Iraqi war. Of those 30 ships, 20 of them were not United States' ships. They were Japanese. They were Australian. They were Italian. They were Greek. There were many other ships from throughout this world. But when we entered through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf, none of those ships came with us except the British and the Australians. At that time, I knew that this war in Iraq would be a tragic misadventure. Two months after the war in Afghanistan commenced, I was actually on the ground in Afghanistan. I saw for a very short period of time what needed to be done in order to bring about a successful resolution of that conflict. After the war in Iraq was over and I left my carrier battle group, I was on the ground again for a short period again in Afghanistan and saw what had not been done, because we had diverted not just our attention but our resources, our PSYOPS forces, our special forces, our civil affairs units to Iraq. To me, Afghanistan is a poster child, as it is pre-terrorist and the Taliban have shifted into the southern provinces again and what Iraq has done to U.S. security worldwide. So, therefore, I believe that the only strategy that we can pursue for success in Iraq is to have a date that is certain by which we will redeploy out of Iraq. We have to do this for two primary reasons. First, a date certain changes the structure of incentives within the countries that are in that region to change the behavior. Iraqis need to step up to the plate, understanding we will not be there providing political and military cover to pursue the personal fiefdoms within the ministries of Baghdad's governments. Also, Iran and Syria are involved destructively in this war. Once they know that we will not be there, they have an incentive to work for stability. They do not want the more than 4 million refugees that are dislocated within Iraq, and some have already filled our borders, to continue to overflow it, if we are not there to contain that instability. Second, they do not want a proxy war between these two allied nations, Syria, Sunni and Iranian Shi'a. If we are not there, they do not want to fuel a proxy war between themselves as they support different religious factions. But there is a second reason why we must have a date certain with sufficient time to redeploy our troops. It took us 6 months to redeploy out of Somalia, a much smaller force. In Iraq, we have 140,000 troops and over 100,000 civilians. No one should ever try to redeploy those troops, and what is the hardest military operation to do is withdrawal, when they are most vulnerable in a short period of time. We must have a date certain as a strategy, as the only leverage remaining to change the behavior of nations within that region to work for stability and to have our troops, those who wear the cloth of this Nation, that we sent there to have a redeployment that can be safe. I ask this Congress to think the next time, as we must work for an end to this open-ended commitment, that we do so with sufficient time, as my bill said, by the end of December 31, but on an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill, where we again would be forced to vote, as I had to, for the safety of our troops versus the need to redeploy from Iraq, under a strategy which can leave behind an unfailed state. To bring about greater security, an authorization bill is needed. Being in the military is a dangerous business. It has the dignity of danger. It should never be unsafe because we are forced in an appropriations bill, with a short period of time, to not provide the resources for our forces. I therefore say that it needs to be an authorization bill with a date certain to bring about a greater security for the United States.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Swedesburg Volunteer Fire Company, located in Upper Merion, Pennsylvania on their 65th anniversary. Established in 1942 as a civilian defense in the face of World War II, the Swedesburg Volunteer Fire Company has become an essential and respected service institution in my district, providing unrivaled emergency response and civic services. Its first engine, a Hale-Ford 500 GPM pumper was purchased for just $5,000. Today a comparable truck would cost around $400,000. Over the course of the past 65 years we have seen a distinct evolution in the Swedesburg Volunteer Fire Company, but one thing has remained contant--the Company's volunteers have been steadfast in their service and dedication to the community. As we look back on the past 65 years, there are some important dates to note: May 11, 1942: Swedesburg Volunteer Fire Company is incorporated by Montgomery County. Its first meetings are in Michael Brodowski's Tavern and Stanley Knaisiak's barbershop. 1946: Swedesburg's Ladies Auxiliary is established by company president, Bernard S. Gutkowski, Sr. 1951: Swedesburg Volunteer Fire Company's original fire house is built on Church Road thanks to generous contributions from James Lees & Sons, among many others. 1953: The development of the PA Turnpike Delaware River Extension charges right through Swedesburg's back yard and the firehouse, along with 32 homes, are razed for its development. 1954: Volunteers and the community rally to construct the present-day firehouse on Jefferson Street. 1960s: The Junior Fireman's Corps is established for volunteers between the ages of 17 and 21. 1975: The Company establishes a Vehicle Rescue Unit with its first ``Jaws of Life''. 1983: Swedesburg is among the first companies in Pennsylvania to be certified in vehicle rescue. 1986: Swedesburg establishes its water rescue team with the purchase of its first boat and hours of training for 30 personnel. 1991: An addition to the existing firehouse is completed, with a larger engine room and improved radio room, a new meeting room and offices. One of the greatest services in my district comes from first responders who are on the frontlines protecting us. They are required to balance the demands of their service with their families and full- time careers. I ask that everyone please join me in congratulating the Swedesburg Volunteer Fire Company and all of the men and women that have helped serve their community over the past 65 years.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I have served this Nation in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. The first was a just war; the second was a tragic misadventure. After 31 years of military service, I ran for this office. I have never deviated from believing that a date certain to redeploy from Iraq is the only strategy which can change the incentives for the Iraqis, the Iranians and Syria, to change their behavior and to work for a non- failed state in Iraq. But I have run the Navy $67-billion-a-year warfare program. And I understand that money is only so fungible, and we will run out. There is a greater good than me, than my office, than my caucus, than this Congress, and that is those that still wear the cloth of this Nation in Iraq that we Americans sent to fight for us. I cannot vote to place their security between us and someone we hope might blink, because I do believe, however, after this, that I have great faith that there are those Americans on both sides of the aisle that will work towards ending this open-ended commitment for their security and America's.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Chair, several days ago, I withdrew an amendment on an independent ethics commission, as the leadership discussed that imminently there would be something forthcoming. I grew up in the military, and I bring this point up, from the Vietnam days until last year, and we were used to having investigations, outside investigations, whether with Milai or whether it was recently the USS Cole. But during that entire period of time, 30-plus years, I learned that the best leadership is leadership by example; that type of leadership where others want to emulate your standards. My question, therefore, is, how can this Congress look across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, to those men and women who have served 30 to 40 years in the cloth of this Nation and say, you cannot work for any company, including General Motors, if they have more than $50 million of contracts, and then not do the same to ourselves where Congressmen can walk out this door today and work for a lobbying firm, proscribed from certain activities, but work and get compensation. If not us, why them? Why them, if not us? I will be disappointed if this Congress passes this. I can support this amendment if it is for us, and I would like to see it for us. I know leadership, however, and this is not leadership.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 408, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation to enhance two, critical Small Business Administration, SBA, Entrepreneurial Development programs, Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, and the Service Corps for Retired Executives, SCORE. Serving as the Representative in a District that has been historically driven economically by vibrant local, small businesses, I greatly appreciate and support the entrepreneurial development assistance that the SBA provides. We know that entrepreneurial development assistance programs work. Businesses who receive SBA entrepreneurial assistance are twice as likely to succeed. In addition, every Federal dollar spent on entrepreneurial development generates seven dollars in increased tax revenue. In the past three years, due to changes in our ever-changing globalizing economy, my District has lost 607 small businesses, and 1 out of 5 manufacturing establishments. This is a trend that I am committed to reversing through fostering entrepreneurial development and creating the right set of conditions to help businesses flourish, stay and be attracted to in my District, and I believe that supporting effective small business entrepreneurial development programs is a key part of that strategy. In 1980, Congress established the SBDC program to foster economic development by providing management, technical and research assistance to current and prospective small businesses. As you know, SBDCs provide services which include, but are not limited to, assisting small businesses with financial, marketing, production, organization, engineering and technical problems and feasibility studies. SBDCs serve Americans with the desire to start their own venture, but lack the technical expertise associated with starting and running a successful business, and in the past few decades, have provided assistance to millions of entrepreneurs across the United States. The SBDC program also represents the effective and efficient use of allocated Federal monies through public/private collaboration to provide necessary technical and mentoring assistance. To that end, SBDCs are funded by matching monies by state legislatures, foundations, State and local chambers of commerce, public and private universities, vocational and technical schools, and community colleges. In fact, sponsors' contributions have been increasingly exceeding the minimum 50 percent matching share, signifying greater participation among such groups and institutions. This is why I feel especially fortunate to have several Small Business Development Sub-Centers located at local universities, such as Widener University, Kutztown University, and the University of Pennsylvania, Wharton, which provides critical business resources and technical assistance to small businesses in and around my District. I would like to stress that the core SBDC program has been extremely effective, but there are certain operational improvements that can be implemented to increase flexibility of Small Business Development Centers to better support and serve our local small businesses and our aspiring entrepreneurs. To that end, changes proposed in this legislation will ensure the quality of grant recipients to host SBDCs; help SBDCs maintain their autonomy from undue SBA interference; protect the confidentiality of SBDC clients; ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent as efficiently as possible by not using SBDC funds except for the sole purpose of business development; and allowing exemptions to the current cap on non-matching portability grants in the event of Federally- designated natural or human-caused disasters. In addition to these operation changes, it is important to strengthen the SBDC core program, which successfully navigates entrepreneurs in managing their business, by establishing specific grant programs that will allow SBDCs to tailor their services to meet the needs of particular business constituencies. For instance, the Capital Access Initiative would establish grants to assist entrepreneurs in processing loan applications and obtaining private equity. An Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative would establish grants to allow SBDCs to become ``Technology Centers,'' to help market technologies and advanced projects to manufacturers. A Disaster Recovery Program would establish grants to allow SBDCs to assist and coordinate the Federal response for small business disaster victims. The Older Entrepreneurial Assistance program will target older Americans interested in transitioning to become business owners, while the Small Business Sustainability Initiative will promote the development and implementation of energy efficient and clean energy improvements and technology. A National Regulatory Assistance Initiative will provide assistance to small businesses to comply with Federal regulatory requirements, and an Affordable Health Care Initiative, will help small business owners provide affordable health care insurance options to their employees. As I also mentioned, a second program which this legislation will address is SCORE, which provides entrepreneurs with free counseling assistance by former executives. SCORE provides a valuable service to small businesses, and I believe it will be even stronger with a provision to actively recruit volunteer mentors who will greater reflect the social and economic diversity of those who utilize SBA services, such as women and underrepresented minorities. Again, thank you for allowing me to speak this morning about this important bill, which will greatly enhance the business development resources available to America's small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Congressional Record and that all Members and former Members who spoke during the recess have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, we are at the point where no one should call the war in Iraq ``Bush's war.'' It is ours, America's war. We are in this together. We Democrats need the Republicans if we are to end it without a failed Iraqi state. It is not just about ``getting out of Iraq.'' It should be about redeploying out of Iraq so that we can better ensure U.S. security elsewhere, as we leave Iraq with relative stability. The resolution we will soon vote on is today's stalking horse, with merit, but with less of a strategic plan for a successful end than the last Iraqi resolution, despite times that are now more dire in Iraq and, therefore, also for us. We need both the Republicans and a new strategy so that we can successfully end this conflict for our betterment. I see the key as President Bush's statement that our commitment is not open-ended. We, therefore, now need to define how to end it, together. I will vote for this resolution, but I am expressing my reservations because it lacks defining how to achieve the end of an open-ended commitment by a winning strategy. That is why we need the Republicans, and they us, to resolve the war successfully by a strategy that deliberately defines the end of our open-ended commitment so that we can then use it to exact success, diplomatically, regionally, ensuring our, and Iraqis', greater security.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of this bill because it would change our strategy in Iraq towards the successful outcome, while ensuring that America will be more secure. It does so by providing, most importantly, a date certain by which we will not be in Iraq, approximately 9 months from its enactment, that serves as the sole remaining leverage we have to change the structure of incentives in that country and in the region toward stability. Presently, the Iraqi ministries are personal fiefdoms where the leaders pursue their personal ambitions while we provide them political and military cover in what is now principally a civil war. Political reconciliation. How? When their very top Shia and Kurdish leaders recently told Senator Hagel and me that the re-Baathification law is only appeasement to the Sunnis. But our U.S. leaders in Iraq say it is critical to success and stabilization. A date certain finally forces the Iraqis to make the difficult political compromises they are presently avoiding; more importantly, it changes the incentives and therefore the behavior of Iran and Syria from being involved destructively in this war because we are bleeding towards working for stability. As our top political leader in Iraq said, Iran does not want a failed state if we depart.

Mr. SESTAK

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, having worn the cloth of this Nation for 31 years, I am at the point where I just needed to say that no one can call this war in Iraq Bush's war, for it is ours, America's war. We are in this together. We Democrats need the Republicans if we are to end it without a failed Iraqi state, and they us. It is not just about getting out of Iraq; it should be about redeploying out of Iraq so that we can better ensure U.S. security elsewhere as we leave Iraq with relative stability. This resolution has merit, but with less of a strategic plan for a successful end than the last Iraqi resolution, despite times that are now more dire in Iraq and, therefore, for us. But it is hopefully a step towards one, and therefore, it pushes us to know that we do need the Republicans and a new strategy so that together we can successfully end this conflict for our betterment. I see the key as President Bush's statement that our commitment is not open-ended. We therefore now need to define how to end it together. I will vote for this resolution, but express my reservation that it does lack defining how to achieve the end of an open-ended commitment by a winning strategy. That is why we ultimately need the Republicans and they, us, to resolve the war successfully by a strategy to bring us to the end of an open-ended commitment.

Mr. SESTAK

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

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.

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 increase the number of Federal contracts granted to small businesses by addressing a practice known as contract bundling, which has allowed Federal agencies to award mega-contracts, contracts so large they cannot possibly be performed by a small business. This amendment will ensure that more large contracts will be reviewed as to their appropriateness to be bundled and potentially broken into smaller pieces more suitable for small business. The goal: enhancing taxpayer savings by a more efficient and effective use of our resources by helping the Federal Government meet its statutory goal of small business contracts, which it presently does not. Presently, the bill's current definition would prevent too many large contracts to be exempted from a bundling analysis as to their appropriateness for access to small business. This amendment will help reduce these exemptions by eliminating the monetary threshold for nonconstruction Federal contracts to be reviewed. Additionally, bundled contracts that ``substantially transform a good or service,'' referring to contracts that use a new, innovative contract process, are currently exempted from bundling analysis. This amendment would mandate that in such cases measurable, substantial benefits must be demonstrated to the government in terms of quality, performance or price. If that cannot be shown, a bundling analysis must be completed. This amendment, by also explicitly requiring that a bundling analysis be performed for new work and construction contracts, as opposed to just previously performed work, will also close the loophole that has been used by agencies to avoid unbundling contracts. Let me give you an example of why addressing contract bundling is important to not just small businesses but also to efficient and effective use of our Nation's resources, particularly in new or transformational requirements that our Federal agencies increasingly contract for. Gestalt, a small business located in my district, recently competed in an Army contract, which they competed for against a very large defense corporation, to fix the Defense Readiness Reporting System. Right now, we have in the military a fairly arcane system, where obtaining detailed, up-to-date, instantaneous information on the readiness of our military and its units is challenging at best. What was required was a much more dynamic system that could present in real- time the readiness of our forces, in this case, the 5,000-plus Army units we have, which can greatly impact a commander's decision in what has become a fast-paced, battle space environment where speed of decision is so highly valued. The large defense corporation said it would take 3 years to complete the project, while the smaller firm then did it in only 7 months. From my time as a vice admiral responsible for executing the Navy's annual $67 billion worth of warfare requirements and programs, I know there is a tendency, because of ease of execution, to want to go to a large corporation and have them subcontract their bundled program to other vendors. The result, unfortunately, is particularly worrisome at a moment when we need to transform not just our military but many of our other federally funded efforts. The speed and agility that more entrepreneurial small businesses often can provide in a fast-paced, globalized and continuously changing world are key to rapidly meeting new, evolving requirements of our Nation, particularly in such transformational areas as software and information technology. It is, therefore, inefficient and ineffective to our competitive edge to deny entrepreneurial small businesses direct access to the real requirements of the customer, the U.S. government, and it is also harmful to our interests to have large corporations bundle certain contracts so that only derived requirements are available to the subcontractors, these derived requirements having to be interpreted by sub-vendors or be interpreted to them by the large corporation, a middleman, adding complexity, time and misinterpretation, rather than streamlining, to the Federal contracting process. In short, undue bundling of contracts cost the taxpayers money. More, this inefficiency leads to less effectiveness. By unbundling work requirements, this amendment will create new opportunities for small firms, expanding the government's access to more qualified contractors. Increased competition because of more fair access will lead to lower prices and to the improvement of the quality of goods and services procured by the Federal Government. I urge all my colleagues to support this critical amendment, not only for the Nation's entrepreneurial small businesses but for a more efficient and effective application of our Nation's resources Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.