PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON IRAQ TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Lantos (chairman of the committee) presiding. Chairman LANTOS. The committee will.come to order. When our founding fathers gathered in Philadelphia more than two centuries ago, they carefully crafted a Constitution that bal- ances the Federal Government's powers to prevent their abuse by any single person or institution. The U.S. Constitution established in its very first article a Congress of the United States as a co- equal branch of government to ensure against the repeat of the type of tyranny that the American people experienced under the ar- rogant rule of King George. Now our country enters its fifth year of military operations in Iraq. For the first 4 years of the war, Congress failed to exercise its constitutionally-mandated role of limiting the power of a single institution, the Executive Branch. Under the congressional majority at the time, oversight was scarce. There was no meaningful legislation to help set the direc- tion of the effort in Iraq, and there was little serious debate in this institution about the conduct of the war. In short, Congress became the “Amen corner” for the administration, and the single-minded administration officials chose to turn a deaf ear to our concerns. The November elections changed all that. The newly elected Con- gress has moved assertively to restore the role of Congress as a co- equal branch of government directly representing the voice of the people. Congress has held more hearings on Iraq during the last 3 months than in the previous 4 years combined. This is almost un- believable so I would like to repeat it. Congress has held more hearings on Iraq during the last 3 months than in the previous 4 years combined. In the past 10 weeks, this committee alone has held more than two dozen hearings on the critical foreign policies facing our nation today, including five specifically on the war in Iraq, and our work has just begun. The members of this committee will continue to ask hard ques- tions and refuse to accept brush-off answers. This week the House will move beyond debate on Iraq toward concrete action for the sec- ond time this session. One month ago we made it clear that we op- pose escalation in Iraq, and I was proud to be the author of that (1) And I say this to the chairman and my colleagues, we are facing the same situation that we went through in Vietnam, and guess what? We have full diplomatic relations with Vietnam, which is a communist country, and nothing ever is to be said about the tre- mendous, tremendous loss of lives and the efforts and the resources of our country that the waste on that terrible conflict that we were confronted with, and I say this, Mr. Chairman, because I, too, was just a grunt in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968, and I pray to God that we will never see any of these people have to go through what I went through, and I sincerely hope that members of this committee will consider that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LANTOS. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe. Mr. PoE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I waive my opening Chairman LANTOS. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey. Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Colorado is not wrong, so you have got somebody that believes you are doing the right thing over here. This is not a war. It is an occupation, and we don't belong in Iraq. So this afternoon or later this morning I will present my legisla- tion, and my legislation is to bring our troops home and give the Iraqis back their sovereignty. It is my belief and the belief of many others per the election in November that we can do both, and we must do both. While protecting our troops, we will not abandon the Iraqi peo- ple, and as importantly, we will commit to providing, actually through entitlement, health care, including mental health for all of our veterans. So I look forward to sharing all that with all of you later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LANTOS. Thank you very much. The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for keeping a commitment to the American people that this committee under your chairmanship would take up the serious foreign policy issues of the day, and particularly those addressing the question of saving lives and protecting the young men and women on the front line. Let me thank the ranking member for joining you in this effort, and remind my colleagues that as we debate this question let us keep in front of our eyes, around our senses that young men and women are dying in Iraq. It is interesting to look into the debate on this question and I al- ways remind myself that I am in a safe and secure building, as safe as you could possibly be, lights and heat and air conditioning, away from harm's way, as much as you can be in this climate, and so however long we prolong this debate or decisions about bringing the troops home, those of us who debate it, although we do it in conscious and sincerity, and patriotism, we do it in safety. I am re- minded of that. I am reminded of the episode of CNN just a day or two ago re- garding homeless Iraqi veterans. I am reminded of the debacle of Walter Reed. Chairman LANTOS. The gentlelady's time has expired. ample, anecdotal about the responsibility that we have for basic government services in Iraq. What my bill would do is create a Presidential commission with designees from the White House, the House and the Senate, both majority and minority parties, to facilitate the transition of govern- ment operations from the United States military, and we are doing everything for the Iraqis right now, 99 percent of it, over to the Iraqi nment. I think this is necessary to create the conditions for an orderly and deliberate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. This model is not of my own creation. This is actually modeled on a bill called the Filipino Rehabilitation act which at the end of World War II the United States military found itself in control of the Philippine Islands, and because of the Japanese occupation there was no structure there of that government, and what we did was through both the Roosevelt and Truman administrations we created a similar commission that basically handed off the govern- ment operations from the United States military to the incumbent native government, and that is a model that I think will work in this case. There are obviously differences between the two situa- tions, but I think the structure and the operation is valid, and I think it will, as I say, create those conditions necessary for our withdrawal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LANTOS. Thank you very much, Congressman Lynch. To repeat, the number of this legislation is H.R. 533. It is entitled, “The Iraq Transition Act of 2007.” We appreciate your appearing before the committee. Mr. LYNCH. I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman LANTOS. I am pleased to call on Chairman John Mur- tha, our distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, whose legisla- tion is entitled, “House Joint Resolution 18, Designated to Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq.” We are appreciative of your appearance, Chairman Murtha. The time is yours. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN MURTHA, A REP- RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYL- VANIA Mr. MURTHA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, I appreciate the opportunity to appear. I wish you would read some of what I have submitted to the com- mittee, but let me start by saying in order to achieve stability in Iraq, in my estimation, and in the region, I recommend we redeploy our United States forces from Iraq. The execution of a robust diplo- matic effort—when I spoke out a year and a half ago, people forget I talked about diplomatic effort. They forget I talked about the re- serve; the strategic reserve would be completely depleted by this sustained deployment. To achieve stability and security in Iraq, I believe we must first have a responsible phased redeployment from Iraq. General Wil- liam Odem. U.S. Army retired, testified, “We are pursuing the wrong war. Stability and security in the region should be over- arching strategy, not a victory in Iraq.' 14 JOHN P. MURTHA 12TH DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE APPROPRIATIONS Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515–3812 March 19, 2007 Dear Colleague, The emergency war supplemental that we will debate on the floor Thursday heavily focuses on the decline of our military readiness and the need to fix this pressing problem. On Monday, March 19, 2007, an article in the Washington Post described what military officials quietly "have called a 'death spiral,' in which the ever more rapid pace of war-zone rotations have consumed 40 percent of their total gear, wearied troops and left no time to train to fight anything other than the insurgencies now at hand.” The Army's Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker, said in a hearing last week, “We have a strategy right now that is outstripping the means to execute it.” The Army's Vice Chief, Richard Cody described the Army's readiness as "stark.” General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently reported that because of the demands of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to another crisis. General Pace stated that he is not comfortable" with the preparedness of Amy units in the United States. At the beginning of the Iraq war, 80% of all Army units and almost 100% of active combat units were rated at the highest levels of readiness. Just the opposite exists today. Virtually all of our active-duty combat units at home and all of our guard units are at the lowest level of readiness. Our nation is threatened because our forces at home lack the readiness to effectively respond to future threats to our national security. We must make it a national priority to rebuild our military and to restore our military readiness. The current situation in which we find ourselves did not happen overnight, nor did it occur without warning. On July 26, 2006, Chairman Obey and I sent a letter (attached) to the President urging him to address the continuing deterioration of our military's readiness. In September of last year, we held a press conference to discuss the continuing erosion of the Army's military readiness. Yet I still do not believe this vital issue is getting the attention it deserves. Because of the complexity of this issue, I have attached a point paper which provides a clear description of what is meant by the term “military readiness." Sincerely, (JOAN P. MURTHA MEMBER OF CONGRESS 16 In 2001, all active duty Army divisions were rated at the highest readiness levels. They were fully manned, equipped, and trained. Only some reserve units were not ready to go to war. Since the beginning of the Iraq war, the readiness of our forces (both active and reserves) has plummeted. In fact, Army military readiness (ground forces) has declined to levels not seen since the end of the Vietnam War. The vast majority of our active duty Army units at home are critically short of equipment and personnel, causing them to be rated at the lowest readiness levels. Moreover, there is NOT ONE Army National Guard combat unit that is fit for deployment. These units are either preparing to go to Iraq or serve as our forces held in reserve to fight another conflict. The Abu Ghraib scandal is an example of what could happen when a deployed unit was less than fully capable of meeting its mission. In this case, the unit did not have the right number of trained personnel. Ultimately, under-manned, under-equipped, or under-trained units are likely to experience higher casualty and accident rates in theater. This will be even more likely to occur if units are required to deploy to the theater with less than one year at home, or are kept in theater longer than one year, having lost their combat edge. The FY 2007 Iraq supplemental bill tries to put a stop to exposing our troops to more danger because they may lack equipment, or training, or are just plain worn out. This is done in two ways: o Funding: The bill provides more funds for equipment, training, and health care than was requested by the President. The bill also fully funds the increase in the number of Army soldiers (36,000) and Marines (9,000) sought. o Provisions: By insisting that the military meet their own guidelines - The bill requires that our troops be fully trained and equipped, and well-rested, before they are deployed to Iraq. 27 toward peace. It has 60 co-authors in the House, both Democrats and Republicans. It closely follows the bipartisan recommendations of the Iraq Study Group by requiring a phased redeployment of United States troops to begin no later than May 1, 2007, with all combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. My bill also allows some flexibility of the redeployment time ta- bles as a way to encourage the Iraqi Government to make progress on specific benchmarks. It allows the President to request from Congress a brief suspension of the redeployment if there is clear evidence that the Iraqi Government is achieving certain security, diplomatic, and reconstruction milestones. If the Iraqi Government is making progress, we should help them rebuild and stabilize their country, but bringing our troops home as quickly and as safely as possible should be our top priority. Under my bill, the President is required to submit quarterly re- ports to Congress, describing and assessing the Iraqi Government's progress in meeting these specific benchmarks. The legislation also conditions future economic assistance to Iraq on the progress they make toward those benchmarks. In addition, the President must report to Congress on the progress of the redeployment. It also calls for increased diplomatic efforts in the Middle East by requiring the President to appoint a special United States envoy that will help build relationships be- tween Iraq and its neighbors. Mr. Chairman, my second bill addresses accountability. We need to know that U.S. taxpayer dollars are being properly spent but, unfortunately, there has been evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse. We need to support our troops and ensure that they are getting the equipment they need. We have seen countless examples of this, and these aren't isolated incidents. Reports from the GAO and the in- spector general in Iraq have found evidence of billions of dollars in misspent and unaccounted for funds. My bill requires the President through the Department of De- fense, inspector general, and the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction to report to Congress on all reconstruction in mili- tary spending within 30 days after any supplemental. The report must include assessments of the funding, who we are spending to, how we are hiring these people, and if any waste, fraud and abuse is found, there would be appropriate sanctions placed on them. I think these are both important measures to help move us to- ward getting out of Iraq as quickly as we possibly can, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your thoughtful in bringing this hearing forward. [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chairman Lantos, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present my legislation, H.R. 787 and H.R. 714. I believe we have completed our mission in Iraq. Now it is time for the Iraqi gov- ernment to secure the peace. Our country must focus on protecting our troops, bringing them home as safely and quickly as possible, and turning Iraq's national security over to the Iraqis. Also, I strongly believe we must fight terrorism both proactively and vigilantly, wherever it exists. As the Chairman of the Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism, 30 Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Twenty-eight Democrat bills today, and two Republican bills, and everything I have heard so far is to beat-up-on-the-President approach. You know, George Washington was asked by some of his generals to resign because the Revolutionary War wasn't going well. Abraham Lincoln was vilified because the Civil War wasn't going well, and they said he wasn't going to be reelected until things changed right at the end. Churchill was vilified because nobody would listen to him because they thought Hitler was not going to be a real menace until he went into Poland, and everybody wanted to capitulate. All I would like to say to my Democrat colleagues today is every- thing that we are hearing means withdrawal, redeploy, whatever you want to call it, but it means capitulation and creating a void in the Middle East that is going to be filled by the radical terror- ists. We are in a war against terrorism, and if we create a void over there in Iraq, it is going to be filled by Iran who is developing a nuclear capability, and it is going to leave the entire Middle East and the world vulnerable, and I would just like to say to my Demo- s, and I know I am going over Mr. Chairman, I am going to stop right now, think about that. Instead of just beating up on the President, think about the ramifications of pulling out right now. Chairman LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Mr. Carnahan. Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to waive doing an opening statement so we can hear from our other mem- bers. Chairman LANTOS. I am pleased to call on my colleague, my fel- low Californian and good friend, Congresswoman Lee. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA LEE, A REP- RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALI- FORNIA Ms. LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I thank you and our ranking member for inviting me to participate in this hearing on legislation introduced in the 110th Congress on the issue of the war in Iraq. I applaud your foresight in scheduling this important hearing. For 8 years, I had the honor of serving on this committee and I am very pleased to see you, Mr. Chairman, at its helm. This is a very significant- Chairman LANTOS. We miss you on this committee, Barbara. Ms. LEE. Yes, I miss this committee also, but thank you for your leadership, and the committee has expanded, and it is a committee that I think is really leading the way here in the Congress with regard to our foreign policy. This is a very significant hearing because it complements the ag- gressive oversight over the war in Iraq that the Democratic-con- trolled Congress has been able to restore. Yesterday we marked the fourth anniversary since the President misled this nation into an unnecessary war with Iraq that has cost us over 3,200 lives, over 24,000 wounded, and $400 billion. It has 36 troops and contractor withdrawal from Iraq within 6 months of en- actment. H.R. 508, The Bring Our Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Res- toration Act has five major sections. It is a proposal designed to end the occupation of Iraq and restore Iraqi sovereignty. It has 49 Co-sponsors, reflecting a broad reach, and including visions offered in many of the previous bills that you have heard today. It is comprehensive legislation, and with the 49 co-sponsors I have to tell you I haven't even started working it yet. So once I am on the floor pushing it, we will have a lot more co-sponsors, I am sure of that. Part I of H.R. 508 would have all U.S. troops and military con- tractors out of the country within 6 months of enactment. During that 6-month period we would escalate training of Iraqi security forces. Actually, H.R. 508, this section is the foundation of Barbara Lee's amendment that we have tried to have made in order to put into the supplemental spending bill that we are going to be voting on this week, the spending bill that will actually extend the cost of the Iraqi war by over $100 billion. Part II of H.R. 508 includes a commitment to leaving behind an Iraq that is as safe as it can possibly be. So to that end, Mr. Chair- man, H.R. 508 authorizes United States support for replacement of our troops with an international stabilization force for no longer than 2 years, and only, and that is the operative word, only at the request of the Iraqi leadership. Part III, the bill commits United States funds to assist Iraq in rebuilding its economic and physical infrastructure through use of non-military programs and people and by employing Iraqi citizens. So it takes our money, doesn't give it to Haliburton. It gives it di- rectly to the Iraqi Government to rebuild locally. Part IV makes veterans' health care benefits—this is crucial- makes health care benefits—both physical and mental—an entitle- ment for all veterans, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. Part V includes a menu of provisions. It prohibits the establish- ment of permanent military bases. It turns all oil licenses back to the Iraqi people. It rescinds the President's Iraq war powers, and it establishes a commission to investigate the run-up of this occu- pation. The cost of his legislation—without funding for veterans' bene- fits—is pennies on the dollar, Mr. Chairman, as compared to re- maining in Iraq for 18 months to 3 years, and it costs 20 cents on the dollar when veterans' health care is included. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 508 invests in bringing our troops home safely, it invests in training the Iraqi security, and it helps to re- build a nation that we have destroyed, and most importantly, it provides health care, including mental health, for all veterans. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Good morning. Thank you very much Chairman Lantos and fellow members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, for this opportunity to explain the legislation I have introduced, with Representatives Lee and Waters, to complete a safe, orderly, fully-funded military withdrawal from Iraq within 6 months. 40 Chairman LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Udall. I am pleased to call on my friend from Michigan, Congressman Mike Rogers. His legislation is numbered H. Con. Res. 65. It dis- approves of the President's decision to deploy more than 20,000 ad- ditional troops to Iraq, urges the President to consider other op- tions for success in Iraq. You may proceed any way you choose, Mr. Rogers. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE ROGERS, A REP- RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHI- GAN Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, committee members. I appreciate the opportunity. It was great to hear your daughter sing in Budapest. That is diplomacy at its high- est note, I think, and thank you for allowing that to happen when we were overseas. We have spent a lot of time, even in this committee, Mr. Chair- man, talking about should we or shouldn't we have. We have been talking a lot of time about setting deadlines to come home, and the debate has really missed a very important point. We have almost been blinded by our political positions going into this conflict. My concern was that there are things that we knew had not gone well. We knew that there had been mistakes made, not necessarily by our military, they have done everything plus more that we have asked of them, but we allowed to be plopped down in the center of Baghdad a very large American-looking bureaucracy, and it is huge. It is the large Embassy in the world. You have more state employees there than you do in any other location around the world, around the globe. You have this almost dysfunctional exist- ence between DoD and State Department. It happened over time. My argument in this resolution was maybe you don't have to be all in and you don't have to be all out, but maybe we should focus some debate time on what we can do, the things that we can change to make this successful, to stand up for the soldiers who have given so much. And as I look around at the other resolutions, there is no resolution that offers any credible alternative in any way, and I remember the President charged us all. If you have a better way, at least have the courage to offer it, and that is really what this resolution was. It is a compilation of conversations with military leaders, intel- ligence officials, officials overseas, State Department officials, and they are things that we as Member of Congress can influence for a positive outcome, and my concern was that we weren't engaging in that debate at all. We can do some pretty important things. You know, one of the decisions I thought was terrible is that we closed all the state- owned enterprises when we came in because it didn't have an American look to it. Horrible mistake as we look back at it. It cre- ated huge percentages of unemployment that we know at least con- tributes to the fueling of individuals who are willing to take $100 to place an IED. When you talk to the soldiers, the rules of engage- ment have become muddled, mainly because politics has crept into the battlefield in Iraq. sure tailed reports on the situation so that we can make informed deci- sions about America's involvement. I will include more details of the three-part plan in my written testimony, but I will provide a brief outline right here. First, the United States should join with other nations to arrange a peace conference of Iraqi leaders. The purpose will be the achievement of agreements on important goals such as a reason- able distribution of oil revenue, fair and just law enforcement, and plans for provincial and local elections in addition to other rec- onciliation initiative. Broad-based pressure from a variety of international forces re- sulted in the 1995 Dayton Accords that ended the war in Bosnia. Much like the current conflict in Iraq, the war in Bosnia was fueled by ethnic and religious divisions. With similar international pres- re. Irag's warring factions could be brought to the table. Peace discussions could take place in a country seen as a neutral arbi- trator such as El Salvador, which has proven its commitment to Iraq's stability. El Salvador could provide an easily secured envi- ronment and a special standing because of its own experience with a civil war. The second action the administration should take is a concerted effort to utilize America's considerable diplomatic resources to rally positive international involvement. Iraq's oil reserves, strategic lo- cation in the Middle East, and its potential to become a failed-state breeding ground for international terrorism dictate that much of the world has an interest in Iraq's success. There has been some progress made on this front with the March 10 conference, but a much more serious effort must be made by the U.S. to arrange a larger, longer lasting conference that includes higher ranking officials. In rallying support, the United States must talk to all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. Engagement does not require ceding to all parties' demands, but talks are necessary if we are to have the possibility of increased international cooperation. An international conference should work on regional security issues as well as bringing together an inter- national reconstruction plan. Inadequate infrastructure and economic hardships remain de- spite America spending hundreds of billions of dollars. Clearly, it is time for Iraq and other countries to step up the reconstruction efforts. This leads to the third part of the resolution requiring the ad- ministration to give Congress comprehensive reports addressing critical issues such as security conditions and the progress of recon- struction. One of the reasons we have reached this point is that Congress gave the administration free rein without asking questions. The new Congress has acted differently and must continue to do so, not for the sake of politics but for accountability. We should require the administration to provide monthly written detailed reports in addi- tion to appearing before committees to answer questions. This will allow Congress to make informed decisions regarding America's Iraq policy. As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated, “A search for genuine justice and peace in Iraq requires moral urgency, sub- 59 works on time lines. There were time lines for training, time lines for missions, and in Iraq there were time lines for elections and es- tablishing a Constitution. It is clear that we must set another time line, one to bring our troops home and get Iraq up on its own two feet. We must make Iraqi stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home. Until we do that, it is going to be American soldiers running convoys up and down ambush alleys, just like I did over 3 years, and it is going to be my fellow paratroopers who are going to die refereeing a religious civil war on the streets of Baghdad. Mr. Chairman, the American people are ahead of us on this war, so is the Iraq Study Group, and many of our military leaders. They have embraced this time line for our troops in Iraq because they know that until America set a date-certain for removing our com- bat troops Iraqis are going to continue to let the Americans do the heavy lifting. For those who argue against time lines, I urge you to be consistent. I recall that it was a decade ago when a Repub- lican Congress asked for time lines in Kosovo. irman, do I wish we could bring all our troops home to- morrow? Of course, I do. But America faces real challenges in an even more dangerous world, and this legislation acknowledges that. It leaves a strategic strike force in the region to continue to provide civility, train Iraqi troops, guard the borders, and protect against foreign aggression. It also addresses the necessary non-military tools for success that this administration has refused to embrace- both encouraging a special envoy to undertake a diplomatic surge in the region as well as forcing Iraqis to fulfill their promises of economic development. But most importantly, this bill allows our military to refocus its efforts on what it should have been doing all along_tracking down and killing the members of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan where our military leaders are in desperate need of more troops in anticipa- tion for a Taliban spring offensive. Mr. Chairman, I have no illusions that the path ahead will be easy, but I know that the American people are craving leadership, craving diplomacy, craving accountability, and craving a new direc- tion in Iraq. I hope that our children's history books will remember that the 110th Congress is the one who gave them that new direc- tion, and I think House Resolution 97 and H.R. 787 will lead us down that path. I would be happy to answer any questions on these pieces of leg. islation. Chairman LANTOS. Thank you very much, Congressman Murphy. Congress is much indebted to your contribution during the very short time you have been with us. We appreciate your presence. Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, sir. Chairman LANTOS. I am pleased to call on another distinguished new Member of Congress, my friend from Pennsylvania, Congress- man Joe Sestak. His legislation is designated H.R. 960. It is enti- tled, “Enhancing America's Security through Redeployment from Iraq Act.” We are delighted to have you. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOE SESTAK, A REPRESENT- ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. SESTAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.