Senate Appropriations Committee Language in Upcoming Emergency Supplemental Legislation
WASHINGTON, DC-US Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Jim Webb (D-VA) today applauded the Senate Appropriations Committee for including a provision in the FY08 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill prohibiting the use of funds to carry out any bilateral agreement providing U.S. security pledges or commitments to Iraq without prior Congressional approval. In March, the Senators sent a letter urging the Committee to include those restrictions as it marked up the President’s supplemental funding request.
“Any agreement obligating the United States to go to war on behalf of the Government of Iraq without the prior approval of the Congress is neither constitutional nor wise foreign policy,” said Senator Casey. “I am pleased my colleagues recognize the need for Congress to sign off on any permanent pledge of American blood and treasure on behalf of an Iraqi government that has not proven worthy of such sacrifice.”
“For more than six years, the Administration has been less than open with the American public or Congress about its long-term intentions in Iraq,” said Senator Webb. “This language ensures that our future military presence in Iraq is decided not behind closed doors, but through the open air of free debate, including congressional consent.”
Webb continued, “It is a constitutional duty of the Congress to guard against allowing this Administration to position the next President into a situation where the United States has agreed to support a long-term military presence in Iraq.”
Following the U.S. and Iraqi governments agreeing last November on a “Declaration of Principles” outlining the intention of the two nations to negotiate language on long-term security, political and economic relations, Senators Casey and Webb, joined by four other colleagues, wrote the President outlining their deep concern that such an agreement would not be “in America’s long-term national security interest and does not reflect the will of the American people.”
Senators Casey and Webb followed up this spring with another letter to Senate appropriators requesting the inclusion of specific language mandating that any such agreement providing U.S. security assurances to Iraq gain Congressional approval before it go into effect.
Full text of the letter to the Senate appropriators is below:
Dear Senator Byrd, Senator Cochran, Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, Senator Leahy and Senator Gregg:
As you continue work on the Fiscal Year 2008 supplemental appropriations bill, we strongly urge you to include a provision prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to implement any long-term U.S. security agreement containing security assurances with the Government of Iraq without the explicit concurrence of the Congress.
Despite Administration statements to the contrary, we remain concerned that firm security commitments are currently being negotiated solely by members of this Administration under the aegis of a U.S.-Iraq strategic framework agreement. It is conceivable that such commitments may reach the level of a treaty under historical precepts. In any event, if agreed upon these commitments will be very difficult to alter or adjust by the Congress or by a new presidential administration.
Last November, President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki signed a “Declaration of Principles” outlining the broad scope of discussions to be held in coming months to institutionalize long-term U.S.-Iraqi cooperation. The Declaration of Principles referenced “Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.” In our view, its scope potentially falls outside the authority of the Executive Branch of government to act independently of the specific approval of the Congress.
Pursuant to this Declaration, the Administration is now negotiating two separate agreements: a "strategic framework" agreement which is intended to address economic, security and cultural cooperation, and a Status of Forces Agreement which would provide legal authorities relating to the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. We take special exception to the Administration's view that it can negotiate the framework agreement without the consent of the Congress.
Our concern is increased by the recent testimony of Ambassador David Satterfield, the Administration's point-man on this topic. On March 4, 2008 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ambassador Satterfield claimed that the October 2002 authorization for military action inside Iraq now serves as a justifiable legal basis for the continued presence of U.S. military forces beyond the expiration of the United Nations Security Council Chapter VII mandate at the end of this year. We view this argument to be without merit.
For these reasons, we believe it is imperative that the Congress exercise its proper authority on the vital issue of our future relationship with Iraq, and on the question of whether the United States should, indeed, maintain long-term military bases in that country. We encourage the Senate Appropriations Committee, as it marks up a war supplemental funding bill for the remainder of FY 2008, to include a specific provision prohibiting the expenditure of appropriated funds to carry out any agreement on U.S. security commitments to Iraq that has not been submitted to the Congress for approval.
Sincerely,
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR. JAMES WEBB
United States Senator United States Senator
###
“Any agreement obligating the United States to go to war on behalf of the Government of Iraq without the prior approval of the Congress is neither constitutional nor wise foreign policy,” said Senator Casey. “I am pleased my colleagues recognize the need for Congress to sign off on any permanent pledge of American blood and treasure on behalf of an Iraqi government that has not proven worthy of such sacrifice.”
“For more than six years, the Administration has been less than open with the American public or Congress about its long-term intentions in Iraq,” said Senator Webb. “This language ensures that our future military presence in Iraq is decided not behind closed doors, but through the open air of free debate, including congressional consent.”
Webb continued, “It is a constitutional duty of the Congress to guard against allowing this Administration to position the next President into a situation where the United States has agreed to support a long-term military presence in Iraq.”
Following the U.S. and Iraqi governments agreeing last November on a “Declaration of Principles” outlining the intention of the two nations to negotiate language on long-term security, political and economic relations, Senators Casey and Webb, joined by four other colleagues, wrote the President outlining their deep concern that such an agreement would not be “in America’s long-term national security interest and does not reflect the will of the American people.”
Senators Casey and Webb followed up this spring with another letter to Senate appropriators requesting the inclusion of specific language mandating that any such agreement providing U.S. security assurances to Iraq gain Congressional approval before it go into effect.
Full text of the letter to the Senate appropriators is below:
Dear Senator Byrd, Senator Cochran, Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, Senator Leahy and Senator Gregg:
As you continue work on the Fiscal Year 2008 supplemental appropriations bill, we strongly urge you to include a provision prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to implement any long-term U.S. security agreement containing security assurances with the Government of Iraq without the explicit concurrence of the Congress.
Despite Administration statements to the contrary, we remain concerned that firm security commitments are currently being negotiated solely by members of this Administration under the aegis of a U.S.-Iraq strategic framework agreement. It is conceivable that such commitments may reach the level of a treaty under historical precepts. In any event, if agreed upon these commitments will be very difficult to alter or adjust by the Congress or by a new presidential administration.
Last November, President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki signed a “Declaration of Principles” outlining the broad scope of discussions to be held in coming months to institutionalize long-term U.S.-Iraqi cooperation. The Declaration of Principles referenced “Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.” In our view, its scope potentially falls outside the authority of the Executive Branch of government to act independently of the specific approval of the Congress.
Pursuant to this Declaration, the Administration is now negotiating two separate agreements: a "strategic framework" agreement which is intended to address economic, security and cultural cooperation, and a Status of Forces Agreement which would provide legal authorities relating to the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. We take special exception to the Administration's view that it can negotiate the framework agreement without the consent of the Congress.
Our concern is increased by the recent testimony of Ambassador David Satterfield, the Administration's point-man on this topic. On March 4, 2008 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ambassador Satterfield claimed that the October 2002 authorization for military action inside Iraq now serves as a justifiable legal basis for the continued presence of U.S. military forces beyond the expiration of the United Nations Security Council Chapter VII mandate at the end of this year. We view this argument to be without merit.
For these reasons, we believe it is imperative that the Congress exercise its proper authority on the vital issue of our future relationship with Iraq, and on the question of whether the United States should, indeed, maintain long-term military bases in that country. We encourage the Senate Appropriations Committee, as it marks up a war supplemental funding bill for the remainder of FY 2008, to include a specific provision prohibiting the expenditure of appropriated funds to carry out any agreement on U.S. security commitments to Iraq that has not been submitted to the Congress for approval.
Sincerely,
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR. JAMES WEBB
United States Senator United States Senator
###
