December 6, 2007

Senator Clinton Introduces Legislation to Require Congressional Approval for Security Agreements with Iraq

Also Joins Other Senators in Letter Warning the President Against Long-Term Security Commitments

Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today continued to express grave concern about the implications of President Bush’s recently signed Declaration of Principles for a Long-term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship with Iraq. Senator Clinton introduced legislation today that requires the President to seek Congressional approval for any agreement that would extend the U.S. military commitment to Iraq. She also joined a number of other Senators in a letter warning the President against rushing the United States into long-term security commitments to the Iraqi government and urging him to seek Congressional consent. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Jim Webb (D-VA) also signed the letter to President Bush.

"The Bush Administration must not circumvent Congress on the critical issue of the future U.S. presence in Iraq. The Administration must not be permitted to enter into agreements that could lead to permanent bases in Iraq which would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region without Congressional approval," said Senator Clinton.

Last week, the Bush administration announced the Declaration of Principles for a Long-term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship with Iraq, an agreement to start formal negotiations with Iraq about a long-term security pact between the United States and Iraq. The Declaration sets a goal of concluding this final agreement by July 31, 2008.

On November 27, Senator Clinton wrote President Bush to advise him that this agreement must not commit the United States to permanent bases in Iraq, and must include a commitment to the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Today she followed up with a second letter and the legislation that would require the President to seek Congressional approval for security agreements with Iraq.

The legislation requires:

• No funds may be authorized or appropriated to carry out any bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq involving “commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole,” including a status of forces agreement (SOFA), that is not a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate under Article II of the Constitution or authorized by legislation passed by both Houses of Congress.

• The State Department Legal Advisor must provide to the Congress a memorandum evaluating the President’s decision to deny Congress its constitutionally protected role by concluding an agreement on the future of the U.S.-Iraqi security relationship as an executive agreement without the assent of the Congress.

• The memorandum must include an analysis of the Constitutional powers relied on by the President in reaching the conclusion that such an agreement does not require approval by the Congress.

• It is the sense of Congress that any bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq involving “commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole”, including a status of forces agreement (SOFA), that is not a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate under Article II of the Constitution or authorized by legislation, does not have the force of law.


The full text of the letter to President Bush follows –


Dear Mr. President:

We write you today regarding the “Declaration of Principles” agreed upon last week between the United States and Iraq outlining the broad scope of discussions to be held over the next six months to institutionalize long term U.S.-Iraqi cooperation in the political, economic, and security realms. It is our understanding that these discussions seek to produce a strategic framework agreement, no later than July 31, 2008, to help define “a long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship as two fully sovereign and independent states with common interests”.

The future of American policy towards Iraq, especially in regard to the issues of U.S. troop levels, permanent U.S. military bases, and future security commitments, has generated strong debate among the American people and their elected representatives. Agreements between our two countries relating to these issues must involve the full participation and consent of the Congress as a co-equal branch of the U.S. government. Furthermore, the future U.S. presence in Iraq is a central issue in the current Presidential campaign. We believe a security commitment that obligates the United States to go to war on behalf of the Government of Iraq at this time is not in America’s long-term national security interest and does not reflect the will of the American people. Commitments made during the final year of your Presidency should not unduly or artificially constrain your successor when it comes to Iraq.

In particular, we want to convey our strong concern regarding any commitments made by the United States with respect to American security assurances to Iraq to help deter and defend against foreign aggression or other violations of Iraq’s territorial integrity. Security assurances, once made, cannot be easily rolled back without incurring a great cost to America’s strategic credibility and imperiling the stability of our nation’s other alliances around the world. Accordingly, security assurances must be extended with great care and only in the context of broad bipartisan agreement that such assurances serve our abiding national interest. Such assurances, if legally binding, are generally made in the context of a formal treaty subject to the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate but in any case cannot be made without Congressional authorization.

Our unease is heightened by remarks made on November 26th by General Douglas Lute, the Assistant to the President for Iraq and Afghanistan, that Congressional input is not foreseen. General Lute was quoted as asserting at a White House press briefing, “We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.” It is unacceptable for your Administration to unilaterally fashion a long-term relationship with Iraq without the full and comprehensive participation of Congress from the very start of such negotiations.

We look forward to learning more details as the Administration commences negotiations with the Iraqi government on the contours of long-term political, economic, and security ties between our two nations. We trust you agree that the proposed extension of long-term U.S. security commitments to a nation in a critical region of the world requires the full participation and consent of the Congress as a co-equal branch of our government.

Sincerely,


Robert P. Casey, Jr., U.S. Senator; Robert Byrd, U.S. Senator; Ted Kennedy, U.S. Senator; Carl Levin, U.S. Senator; Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator; and Jim Webb, U.S. Senator

 

 



 

 

Read more statements by Senator Clinton concerning the war in Iraq.


###

Home News Contact About Services Issues New York Share Comment Update RSS