Appropriations question?  Visit the Committee website.

E-mail
Senator Byrd

Leadership.      Character.      Commitment.

News organizations seeking more information should contact Senator Byrd's Communications Office at (202) 224-3904.

June 21 , 2006

Byrd Offers Plan to Change Occupation Dynamic in Iraq

Senator Byrd, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, offered a commonsense approach to the U.S. military presence in Iraq, an approach that is both strong and smart, for the future of our troops in Iraq. Senator Byrd’s plan has two key purposes: to affirm the Senate’s support of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, and to provide a path forward for bringing our troops home.

The Byrd amendment:

(1) Sets forth the policy that the democratically elected government of Iraq should take over responsibility for security in Iraq, and that the President should develop and implement a strategy to bring U.S. troops home, consistent with national security interests; and

(2) Outlines the conditions under which the authority to maintain U.S. troops in Iraq would expire. Those conditions are:

• when the government of Iraq assumes responsibility for its own security; or

• if a multinational peacekeeping force (i.e. UN, NATO) assumes responsibility for security in Iraq; or

• if the President certifies that the U.S. has achieved its objectives in Iraq; or

• if Congress enacts a joint resolution to terminate the use of force authority.

The amendment does not attempt to micromanage the war or set artificial deadlines. Nor does it pre-empt the authority of either the President or Congress. It does, however, reassert the role of Congress to authorize – or to terminate authorization – of the use of force.

During debate, Senator Byrd delivered the following remarks to explain his amendment, and why he believes it offers the Senate a chance to speak with one voice on the role of American forces in Iraq.

Today the Senate debates two amendments on Iraq. The first amendment has been offered by Senator Levin. It is a non-binding sense of the Congress that clearly illustrates that there must be a change in our policy toward Iraq. It states that it is neither in the American nor the Iraqi interest to maintain an open-ended commitment of large numbers of our troops. Some may challenge this idea and stubbornly maintain that we must “stay the course” no matter the cost or consequences.I would point these critics to the op-ed which appeared in the Washington Post on Tuesday, June 20, 2006, written by Iraq’s national security advisor. He states, “The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be,” and that “the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people.”

Senator Levin has crafted a good amendment, which I will support. We need a change in our Iraq policy. Senator Levin has put his finger directly on the key issues facing our continued military occupation of Iraq.

The second amendment which will be debated today is an amendment that will be offered by Senator Kerry. His amendment proposes that American troops be redeployed from Iraq no later than July 1, 2007. Senator Kerry should be commended for offering his amendment. It is an important amendment that deserves a full debate. It directly addresses the most pressing issue facing the American people today.

Last week, Senator McConnell offered an amendment similar to that of Senator Kerry’s amendment. It was offered up as a sacrificial lamb, and a procedural motion was made to either kill the amendment, or to continue debating it. I was one of six Senators to vote to continue debate on that amendment. Some may seek to ascribe my vote as a vote for the substance of Senator McConnell’s amendment, but I shall speak for myself.

As I have told Senator Kerry, my vote was not for the substance of Senator McConnell’s amendment, my vote was to continue debate on the most important issue in our country today. My vote was in favor of the institution of the Senate, a temple of debate and free speech. Some may seek to hide from the controversial issue of Iraq, but I will not. Senators are sent by the people of their states to debate the critical issues facing our country, not to hide from them. My vote was in the minority on that procedural motion, but I stand by my vote in favor of debate on Iraq.

The amendment that Senator Kerry offers tonight will likely be voted on tomorrow. I have spoken to Senator Kerry about the substance of his amendment. I know that he is seeking a change in the Administration’s policy toward Iraq, which is acknowledged by most Americans to be a disaster. He should be saluted for his courage in insisting on offering his amendment, even though he will be criticized and even called unpatriotic for speaking his mind. However, I cannot support the substance of his amendment.

I do not support setting a drop-dead withdrawal date for our troops from Iraq. I do not believe that this is a wise policy. I have called time and again for the President to begin bringing our troops home. Our troops cannot be brought home overnight. I also have concerns that this amendment is not strongly tied to the Constitutional powers of Congress relating to the conduct of war. For these reasons, for as much as I support his efforts to make a change in an ill-defined, open-ended, stay-the-course policy in Iraq, I will not support Senator Kerry’s amendment.

But, there are other ways to effect a change in direction.

I rise today to ask that I may be given time to offer another amendment on Iraq. There is an urgent need for us to consider as many options as we can to find an exit strategy, with honor for our troops.

Our country is polarized. The Senate is polarized. And I fear that we have let the usual partisan warfare, put blinders on our purpose.

Every member in this body would like to see a successful end to the war in Iraq. Every member of this body would like to do something that would speed the return of our troops home to the loving arms of their families. All of us, regardless of party affiliation, want to do the best thing for our country. And we would all do well to remember that both the President and the Congress have important roles to play when it comes to the most critical decisions that can be made by any government, namely, the decision to go to war and the decision to come home from war.

The American people are dismayed by this conflict in Iraq. Most assuredly dozens of mistakes have been made and billions of dollars have been spent. Without a doubt our international reputation has been damaged. And we are losing the support of our own people for a drawn-out commitment in Iraq and further loss of life. Can we not try one more approach? Can we not spend a little more time on the consideration of a way out of Iraq? Can we not attempt to speak with one voice on the matter?

I have a third way. It is a fresh approach, I believe. It returns Congress’ rightful voice to the war making power, yet it avoids the pitfalls of usurping the Executive Branch’s role in an ongoing war. It is respectful of the separation of powers, but it does outline a viable exit strategy for Iraq.

The amendment that I would like to offer, the amendment that I would like to see debated on the Senate Floor today, is an effort to move the debate over the war in Iraq from the realm of political mud-slinging to the realm of constitutional responsibility.

My amendment is a simple, straightforward approach to laying out a roadmap to bring our troops home from Iraq with honor and dignity. It establishes the policy that the democratically elected government of Iraq should assume responsibility for its own security, and it sets forth the conditions under which the congressional authority to maintain U.S. troops in Iraq would expire.

This amendment is a genuinely fresh approach to unraveling the conundrum of how to disengage the U.S. military from Iraq. My approach does not attempt to micromanage the war or set artificial deadlines. It is not based on politically motivated rhetoric. It does not pre-empt the authority of either the President or the Congress. What it does do, it returns the focus of the debate to the role of Congress in the authorization of war. What it does do is to reassert the role of Congress to authorize – or to terminate the authorization of - - the use of force.

The conditions under which the Iraq use of force authorization would expire are based on circumstances, not on timetables. They include the following:

• When the government of Iraq assumes responsibility for its own security;

• If a multinational peacekeeping force were to assume responsibility for security in Iraq;

• If the President certifies that the United States has achieved its objectives in Iraq; or

• If Congress were to enact a joint resolution to terminate the use of force authority.

The situation in Iraq has undergone seismic changes since the original use of force authorization was granted by Congress in October of 2002. Since that time our troops have completed the mission of removing Saddam Hussein from power and paving the way for the establishment of a democratically elected government in Iraq. The authorization under which the United States sent its military forces into Iraq is now painfully outdated. It is time to update that authorization, to provide a statutory framework for returning our troops home, and to acknowledge that the war in Iraq does have an end point and is not an open-ended commitment.

Mr. President, it is most important to understand that the amendment I am proposing speaks only to the intent and authority of Congress. It does not infringe upon or in any way usurp the authority of the President. No Senator has to set aside his or her support or opposition to the war in order to support my approach.

But this amendment would send a powerful message to the people of the United States, to the people of Iraq and especially to the democratically elected government of Iraq. It would send the message that the United States supports the security of Iraq but does not intend to become a permanent occupying force in Iraq. This is a message that the people of Iraq need to hear. And it is a message that the people of the United States are clamoring to hear. My amendment is a realistic roadmap for the United States to remove its forces from Iraq in an orderly manner consistent with our national security interests. It is a legally enforceable formula that should be embraced by all who are truly concerned with finding a solution to the problems in Iraq, not just using the debate over the war in Iraq as a political football.

Surely we owe the over 2500 souls who have died fighting for our country in Iraq a little more time on this debate. Surely we can consider the matter of the conflict in Iraq for a few more hours for the sake of the over 18,000 U.S. troops who have been wounded in that country and the unknown numbers of Iraqi innocents who have been killed or maimed. Surely we can discuss this matter on a level that is deeper than sloganeering like “cut and run,” or “stay the course.” Mr. President, I hope that the two leaders will work together to find a way for the Senate to debate my amendment and allow a vote on its merits.

###