A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress with respect to accomplishing the mission in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution will not ensure any success in Iraq. It will not bring our troops home. It will only signal the death of true, honest debate within the walls of this great Chamber.

For many more years than any of us have been alive, this House, the People's House, has been democracy's citadel for intelligent, meaningful, real debate that has led to solutions to some of history's most important and vexing crises.

The charade that many on this floor are attempting to pass as a debate today does a great disservice to those monumental American leaders who have spoken from this same floor over the past two centuries. It does a great disservice to the American public, which expects its leaders to lead, not pander. And it does a great disservice to our military men and women who are depending on us to work together and complete our mission so that they may complete their mission and come home. Today's so called debate is politics at its worst--we're playing politics while U.S. men and women are being killed, wounded and kept away from their families.

Mr. Speaker, I remember lying in a military hospital bed just home from Vietnam while Congress played politics--it was disdainful then and when I think of those brave men and women I've visited at Walter Reed Hospital, Bethesda Hospital and Ramstein Hospital in Germany--it makes me sick today. Let's do our job and bring our troops home as soon as possible.

For weeks we have been told, and the American people have been promised, by the Republican majority that there would be a debate on this floor on the Iraq war. Instead, we get what the news is reporting as ``Republican election year strategy.'' Mr. Speaker, this charade represents a shameless dereliction of our duties and a missed opportunity to provide the American public with the open and honest debate they have been demanding for the past 3 long years now.

This feel-good resolution ignores the issues most important to the men and women serving in Iraq, their families and the taxpayers who have already been billed nearly half a trillion dollars.

It ignores the issues raised by some of our most respected generals. Just listen to what a few have said about the Administration's rush to war:

``We are paying the price for the lack of credible

planning, or the lack of a plan.''--General Anthony Zinni

``What we are living with now is the consequences of

successive policy failures.''--Lieutenant General Greg

Newbold

``They pressed for open warfare before the diplomacy was

finished. It was a tragic mistake. It's a strategic

blunder.''--General Wesley Clark

This resolution ignores the lack of accountability and oversight that's led to some of the most egregious and embarrassing examples of waste, fraud and abuse on record, such as:

$9 billion in missing reconstruction funds.

$263 million in excessive or unsubstantiated costs for importing gasoline into Iraq.

Over $20 million for items that weren't delivered, including:

Security for civilian flights at Baghdad International Airport that never occurred; nonexistent pipeline employees; old and broken down trucks; spray-painted Iraqi cranes passed off as new; police trucks; and a refurbished police academy and library. And millions more have been wasted at taxpayer expense due to no-bid and over-billed contracts awarded by the Bush administration.

This resolution ignores how the civilian leadership of the Defense Department grossly miscalculated the armor and equipment needs of our troops before sending them into combat, which resulted in:

40,000 troops who didn't have basic Kevlar vests or the ceramic plates needed for full protection, which left parents and spouses to buy body armor for their loved ones;

30,000 Marines who needed twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles and more communications equipment to perform their operations successfully;

Soldiers who were issued boots with cheap and soft soles that quickly wore out, thus having to sew material to the bottom of their boots out of desperation;

Soldiers who went to combat with inadequate or poor field radios, ammo carriers, weapon lubricant, socks and even rifle slings;

Military units that were deployed without the necessary armor needed to protect ground vehicles, making them vulnerable to IEDs. And when our troops jerry-rigged them with steel playing, they often flipped or rolled-over, injuring or killing soldiers;

And soldiers who subsequently had to sift through garbage dumps for scrap metal to uparmor ground vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, if you are in charge, you are responsible. That is why several respected generals have cast a vote of no confidence with our civilian leadership of the Defense Department for its lack of planning:

Rumsfeld and his team turned what should have been a

deliberate victory in Iraq into a prolonged challenge.--Major

General John Batiste.

I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to

fight that war, based on his absolute failures in managing

the war against Saddam in Iraq.--Major General Charles H.

Swannack, Jr.

They only need the military advice when it satisfies their

agenda.--Lieutenant General John Riggs

If I was President I would have relieved him three years

ago.--Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper

Two and a half more years of that leadership was too long

for my nation, for my Army, and for my family.--Major General

Paul Eaton

Mr. Speaker, we need to be working non-stop to bring our troops home as soon as possible, not to score political points while they

are fighting a war. And we need to be working to keep them as safe as possible until they are home.

For starters, we need to send a loud message to the insurgents that we will not occupy Iraq and that we will not control Iraq's oil--a message that we want to leave Iraq as much as they want us to leave. Instead, Mr. Speaker, the President has given every impression that the U.S. military has become an occupying force. We are in the process of building a gigantic new U.S. embassy in Baghdad that will span 104 acres, the size of nearly 80 football fields. This does not give the impression that we are winding things down in Iraq. It says to insurgents that we want a permanent military presence and it serves as a recruiting tool to sign up more insurgents. Moreover, it provides no incentives for the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for the security of its country.

On my last visit to Iraq everyone I spoke with--privates, sergeants and the officers in charge of training the Iraqi security forces--want the Iraqis to assume more of the security responsibilities. Our military has done its job--more often than not in two, three or four tours of deployment--an unconscionable demand on our troops, an unconscionable demand on their families and an unconscionable demand on their communities. And make no mistake--it's taking a toll on our military. Continuous deployment in Iraq has hurt military personnel and their families, and strained recruiting and retention. Consider some of the latest statistics on active duty personnel and selected reserves as well as on recruiting and retention:

Each month the equivalent of one battalion is lost due to deaths and wounds.

All the Army's available active duty combat brigades have served at least a 12-month tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.

At least half of those combat brigades have completed their second tour of duty.

By next year the Army projects that it will be short 3,500 active duty officers, primarily captains and majors.

Approximately 3,500 airmen, as well as sailors, are currently performing Army missions they were not adequately trained to do.

Ninety-seven percent of the National Guard combat and special operations battalions have been mobilized since September 11th.

The average tour for National Guard members is 342 days.

Continuous deployment has damaged readiness for mission skills necessary in the war on terror outside those required in Iraq. Consider some of the latest statistics:

Forty percent of all the Army's and Marine Corps' ground equipment is deployed to Iraq. That equipment is wearing out 2 to 9 time's peacetime rate.

Humvees that are designed for 14 years of operation needs are being overhauled or replaced in just 3 years.

The Army has lost over 100 tanks and armored vehicles and over 1,000 vehicles since the start of the war.

If the war in Iraq ended today, it would take the Army more than 2 years to repair or replace its damaged equipment.

The Marine Corps has determined that equipment deployed to Iraq has suffered such significant damage and wear and tear that 80 percent of it will need to be replaced.

In excess of $50 billion is needed to repair and replace equipment damaged or lost in Iraq for the Army and Marine Corps.

Mr. Speaker, stay the course is not a strategy for success and we're not doing our job by being a rubber stamp for the Administration. Each day, it becomes more apparent that the Administration does not have, nor has it ever had, a clear, concise and realistic strategy for ending large scale U.S. involvement in Iraq. The American people deserve a clear explanation of what we are doing in Iraq. They deserve to know what the President is going to do to reduce the incredible physical, emotional and financial burden that all Americans are bearing. If this Congress and the President expect the American people to continue making these sacrifices, then there must be a strategy for success.

Mr. Speaker, we must set the bar and identify what it will take for us to accomplish the mission in Iraq. When the Iraqi people conclude the process of amending their constitution, or by September 30, 2006, we must begin the process of redeployment as soon as practicable. This is a workable approach that tracks a timeline set by the Administration. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 348, which would do just that. This legislation is a bipartisan, comprehensive plan to redeploy American forces out of Iraq and send a clear message to the Iraqi people that the United States has no plans to be a permanent occupying force and we have no designs on Iraqi oil. Six Republicans have signed onto this bill. This bipartisan measure has been introduced in the Senate (S. Con. Res. 93), making it the only bicameral approach to Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I did not support the President's plan to invade Iraq. I considered it to be an unnecessary distraction from hunting down those responsible for the attacks of September 11th. But, as the U.S. has entered its fourth year in Iraq, this is where we are and now we must find a rational and reasonable way out of this mess.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an honest debate about this important issue and while the majority plays politics our men and women serving in Iraq are in terrible danger.

Rhetorical attempts to obfuscate failed tactical decisions in Iraq with the global war on terror will do nothing to solve the problem that is before us today. Nor will it correct this body's failure to provide its constitutional oversight responsibility that has led to the billions of American taxpayer dollars that have either been misused or remain unaccounted for in our efforts to rebuild Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, global terrorism remains a grave national security threat to the United States. However, the war in Iraq and this resolution is a distraction from our struggle against terrorism. As the President continues his stay the course strategy in Iraq, the Taliban is regaining strength in Afghanistan. If we are to prevail in the war on terrorism we must refocus our efforts on terrorist hotbeds, such as Afghanistan.

The brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces are the best- equipped, best-trained and most professional fighting forces in the world. They have been performing their jobs courageously and honorably and their morale remains high. These men and women deserve our thanks and our respect. They deserve better than this sham resolution.

Mr. Speaker, give this House back to the people for real debate on our policy in Iraq.

Mr. President, Monday, May 1, marked the 3rd anniversary of President Bush's speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. On that occasion, with a giant banner behind him proclaiming ``Mission Accomplished,'' the President said triumphantly that ``major combat operations in Iraq have ended.'' But, 3 years later, 133,000 troops remain on the ground, and' the President has signaled that the U.S. military occupation in Iraq is open-ended and of indefinite duration.

This has given rise to suspicions that the United States has long- term designs on Iraq and its oil. And it has deprived the Iraqi government of incentive to resolve its internal divisions and stand on its own feet. With the war in Iraq now in its 4th year, it is clear that the President's course is not a strategy for success; it is a strategy for continued stalemate and stagnation.

It is time to chart new course. To that end, today, I am offering a concurrent resolution that does three things: 1. It states that ``the United States should not maintain a permanent military presence or military bases in Iraq. 2. It states that ``the United States should not attempt to control the flow of Iraqi oil. And 3. It states that the ``United States Armed Forces should be redeployed from Iraq as soon as practicable after the completion of Iraq's constitution-making process or December 31, 2006, whichever comes first.'' A companion to this concurrent resolution has been offered in the other body by Representative Mike Thompson of California.

The capable and courageous men and women of our Armed Forces have completed the tasks they were sent to Iraq to accomplish: Saddam Hussein's dictatorship has been deposed; we are certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction; and the Iraqi people have a constitution and a democratically elected government. To our troops' great credit, they have achieved these things despite a series of disastrous decisions by their civilian leaders in Washington.

Today, the question is: Why are U.S. forces still in Iraq? Our commanders have acknowledged that Iraq's remaining challenges cannot be resolved by the U.S. military, as they are mostly political. As GEN John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said recently, the situation in Iraq is ``changing in its nature from insurgency toward sectarian violence''--I would. add, with U.S. troops caught in the crossfire.

Given these realities, President Bush's call to ``stay the course'' is a slogan, not a strategy. for success. Indeed, I fear that ``stay the course'' really means ``stay forever,'' and this sends exactly the wrong message. It stokes the insurgents, who believe that the U.S. wants a permanent military presence in Iraq. And it takes away any incentive for the Iraqi government to resolve its internal divisions and stand on its own feet.

As GEN George Casey, our commander in Iraq, told the Senate last September, ``Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on the coalition, [and] extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.''

BG Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, put it this way: ``I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that . . . this insurgency is not going to be settled . . . through military options or military operations. It's going to be settled in the political process.''

I would add that the Iraqi people also believe that a redeployment of

Mr. Speaker, I support passage of S. Con. Res. 2, which would re-establish the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies to continue preparations for the presidential inauguration at the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2005 and authorizes the use of the Capitol Rotunda for the proceedings.

This non-partisan joint committee was originally created last year by concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 94, to begin its work, but since resolutions do not carry over from one Congress to the next, it expired automatically on January 3, 2005, along with the 108th Congress. That is why this routine action is necessary today.

Congress passes this concurrent resolution every four years. The Speaker, Majority Leader and Minority Leader were originally appointed to represent the House on the joint committee and will be re-appointed to continue in those roles.

As for the use of the Rotunda authorized by Section 2 of S. Con. Res 2, we traditionally pass this measure at the beginning of any Congress following a presidential election in order to accommodate security planning and rehearsal for the inaugural, since the Rotunda is routinely used for ceremonial purposes during the inauguration and could host the event itself, depending on the weather at that time. A similar concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 93) was also passed last year during the 108th Congress to allow early planning for the inaugural to begin, but, like any resolution, it expired on January 3. That is why this action renewing the authority is necessary today. Therefore, I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution so that we can move forward with Inaugural ceremonies.

I send a concurrent resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.