Senator Byrd’s speech discussing this proposal follows.

President Bush marked the fourth anniversary of his announcement that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” by vetoing war funding legislation because he claimed that it limited his ability to prosecute a war unconditionally and indefinitely. Our Armed Forces are now well into their fifth year of combat operations -- longer than the U.S. was involved in World War II -- and the time is overdue to examine and update U.S. policy in Iraq.

The legislation which President Bush vetoed would have set a responsible new course for the war. It was a balanced and fair proposal that I was pleased to support. Sadly, the President continues to believe that peace and stability can be forced on the Iraqi people at the point of a gun. He was wrong in 2002 when he sought authorization to go to war and he is wrong today.

However, now that the President has insisted on continuing down this failed path, it is our responsibility to discuss alternatives that can become law.

The Congress is not an ATM, spitting out billions whenever the President requests it. It is a policy arm of the government as well as its banker. The Constitution says that "the Congress shall have power to . . . provide for the common Defence." It is the Congress that is given the sole power to declare war. The Congress is sworn to, "raise and support Armies." The Congress and the people of the United States have a right to expect clarity in our mission and a foreseeable end to this conflict.

The situation in Iraq in 2007 is very different from what it was in 2002, when the Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. As the President himself said, "This is not the war we entered in Iraq, but it is the war we are in." It is time to rethink, reset our goals, and consider a new authorization which outlines the mission as the President now sees it.

The October 11, 2002 authorization for the President to use force in Iraq was very specific. After expressing support for diplomatic efforts to resolve the causes of conflict with Iraq, the authorization allowed the use of force for two purposes. The first was to defend the national security of the United States, "against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." The second reason was to, "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions against Iraq."

In 2002 and early 2003, President Bush made his case to Congress and to the American people for the invasion of Iraq. His stated goals included the elimination of the weapons of mass destruction programs that Iraq was thought to possess and, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime. By that yardstick, the U.S. military has achieved brilliant success.

No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq -- not just weapons that could threaten the national security of the United States, but no weapons of mass destruction of any description. Saddam Hussein and his government are gone. The Iraqi people have elected a new government. The U.S. military has achieved success in Iraq. And, that success has come at a high price, both in dollars and in lives. Thus far, over 3,350 American men and women have been killed, and many more have been wounded. Including the funding in the emergency supplemental vetoed by the President, over $450 billion has been provided by Congress to execute this war.

The October 11, 2002 authorization to use force has run its course. It is time, past time, to decommission this authorization and retire it to the archives. If the President has more that he wants to do in Iraq, then he needs to make that case to Congress and to the American public. Our continuing presence in Iraq is not supported by the people or the Congress. The President must redefine the goals and submit his plan to achieve them to a thorough and open debate in the Congress and throughout the country. That is the American way. Success will elude us without the support of the people whose sons and daughters are being asked to die in the sands of Iraq.

I propose October 11, 2007 as the expiration date for the 2002 authorization, and that the President seek a new authorization from the elected representatives of the people in Congress. The President must be clear about what he now hopes to accomplish in Iraq, and how he intends to achieve it. President Bush must build support for his plan. Without the support of the public and the Congress, we should no longer be in this fight. It is now an Iraqi fight for national reconciliation, not a war to ensure U.S. national security. If the President sees a further role for U.S. troops, he should articulate it and seek consensus for a changed mission.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of this important debate can agree that the 2002 authorization has run its course. It is no longer viable and it should be set aside. What I propose does not mandate redeployment on any date certain, it simply calls on the President to make the case for the new situation in which we find ourselves. My proposal does not set limits on troop levels nor prevent them from doing what is necessary to protect themselves and U.S. personnel. It also does not prevent us from pursuing terrorists whom have set their sights on the U.S. What it does is stop our troops from fighting endlessly in an Iraqi civil war after October 11, 2007, unless the President receives a mandate from the American public and the U.S. Congress.

Let us try to give the President a chance to refocus his vision on the changed circumstances in Iraq, free from the shackles of a shamelessly outdated grant of authority. I deplore the political gamesmanship which has polarized our nation. I regret the harsh partisanship which rages while our brave troops fight and die.

A fresh start could change the dynamic in this country. A concerted effort by the White House to reassess its goals and opportunities in Iraq could point a path to progress. A new debate in Congress could resolve confusion and contention about continuing a strategy for Iraq that no longer addresses the exigencies of today. We need a new mission which makes clear the changed role of our troops. We need a diplomatic component to the plan which might encourage the national reconciliation so badly needed to quell the violence in Iraq. We need a plan to reach out to other countries in the area who share our interest in seeking stability in Iraq. But first we need to clear the cobwebs and the confusion caused by a grant of authority that no longer has any relevance to the present condition of Iraq.

I ask other Senators to consider my proposal whether this proposal is considered on the supplemental, on the Defense Authorization Bill or on the Defense Appropriations Bill. I ask cooler heads to see the possibilities of beginning a new assessment of where we are and where we are going. I ask for a cease fire in the political war in Washington for the sake of our troops and of our country.

###