THIS IS A PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES SENATOR ROBERT BYRD.

Washington, DC.... U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., stood before the Senate this evening to urge immediate action on an amendment that would sunset the 2002 Iraq War Authorization. Byrd argued that the 2002 resolution, which gave President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, is outdated and should be de-authorized. Byrd and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., have authored this legislation that would require the President to seek new authority for any missions beyond those authorized in the FY 2008 Department of Defense Authorization Bill. The Administration would have to explain to the public why our young men and women should be sent into the middle of a fight between religious factions and explain why the nation should continue to devote $10 billion each month to this fight.

On October 11, 2002, the Senate voted to provide President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq in order to stop the development of weapons of mass destruction, to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein, and to give the Iraqi people the opportunity to create their own government. Those goals, the Senators maintain, have been achieved. That authorization has run its course.

Today, more than 150,000 members of our armed forces are caught in a civil war. According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war. The Senators believe it is time for the waiting to end and for our troops to start to come home.

Text of Senator Byrd's remarks:

____________________________________________

Mr. President, as the Senate turns its attention to the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), every Member of this body is focused on the security of our nation and the safety of our troops in Iraq. Senators Levin and McCain, along with the other members of the Armed Services committee, have worked hard to put together a bipartisan bill that provides our troops with the resources they need and sets priorities for defense spending for the year ahead.

This is a strong bill, and I was proud to support it in committee, but it is incomplete. It is incomplete because we cannot possibly claim to have truly provided for our nation’s security until we have addressed the situation in Iraq.

It is now more than four years since President Bush declared that the mission in Iraq had been accomplished. Since "Mission Accomplished," more than 3,400 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq. A sectarian civil war is now deeply entrenched and raging. The political compromises that for years we have been promised by the Iraqis seem to be more distant than ever. Civilians are dying in ever-greater numbers. And every day more American troops are hurled into the crossfire. It is time – far past time – for the U.S. Congress to have a real debate about this war, and about where our national security interests ultimately lie.

We must start by sunsetting the outdated and open-ended 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq, and requiring the President to request a new authorization which outlines the new mission which our troops are asked to perform. The amendment that Senator Clinton and I are offering does exactly that: it will end the 2002 authorization on its five-year anniversary, October 11, 2007.

That authorization, which was passed to confront the threat we were told faced us from the government of Saddam Hussein, is no longer relevant. Our troops have toppled the dictator. The Iraqis have voted in a new government. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. Meanwhile, American soldiers continue to die in the crossfire of another country’s civil war, while the President fails to clearly articulate our mission, strategy, or goals for continuing our occupation of Iraq. He must clearly explain his vision to an increasingly skeptical public.

The American people were told that this year would mark a turning point, a new direction in the war, with a new strategy intended to give Iraq’s political leaders breathing room in order to forge a political consensus. Unfortunately, that is not the way events have unfolded: despite the addition of more than 20,000 U.S. troops into Baghdad, civilian deaths have actually increased as the insurgents have engaged in a "surge" of their own. Far from creating breathing room for peace, the President’s current course appears to be pumping oxygen into the fire of sectarian violence.

The decision to go to war, to send our sons and daughters into the line of fire, to ask them to kill and be killed on our behalf, is the weightiest decision a Member of Congress can ever make. It is wrong for Congress to continue to fail to reassess that outdated authority without a real debate about where the occupation of Iraq is headed. The authorization that Congress passed in 2002 to give the President authority to go to war in Iraq was rushed through three weeks before Congressional elections. It was passed in the shadow of warnings of mushroom clouds, and the not-so-subtle implication that anyone who voted against war could not be trusted with matters of national security. It was a hasty and unconstitutional abdication of Congress’s authority in matters of war. It is time to bring that authorization to a close and have an honest debate about the way forward. We do our troops a disservice if we do not take a fresh look and the President should welcome the opportunity to solicit renewed support for his policy. We must think of our national interest and of our brave troops and put politics aside.

At a recent Senate hearing, I asked Defense Secretary Gates if the 2002 authorization still applies to Iraq. His response was surprisingly candid: "I don’t know." I believe the answer to that question is clear, and that it is time for the President to make the case to the Congress and the American people for the U.S. military’s changed mission in Iraq. Our country will benefit from the debate.

This amendment puts the ball back in the President’s court, requiring him to request a new authorization for the new mission that challenges our military. The White House has repeatedly asserted that General Petraeus needs until September to assess the progress of the security escalation in Iraq. This amendment gives him that time, but it also ensures that Congress and the people have the opportunity to examine that progress to determine our course in Iraq. It is a simple, common-sense approach that reestablishes the Congressional authority decreed by our Constitution. It also respects the President’s role as Commander in Chief.

It is important to emphasize to all of my colleagues that supporting my amendment does not preclude voting for any other legislative options. This amendment addresses the legal foundation for the war. We are a nation of laws not of men. My amendment simply states the obvious truth that the facts on the ground do not match the open-ended authorization that is still in force. Any Senator wishing to vote for legislation mandating a withdrawal date, or to restrict war funding, or to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, should also support the Byrd-Clinton amendment.

As the President himself said earlier this year, "the fight we are in is not the fight we entered." I couldn’t agree more. This is not the fight Congress authorized. I urge this body to schedule a vote on the Byrd-Clinton amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.