WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Bill Delahunt, Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight, today continued his series of hearings on the Bush Administration’s proposed long-term agreement with the Iraqi government. This was the first hearing to feature testimony from the Administration.
“After months of ignoring requests from Congress to publicly explain to the American people what they were up to, the Administration finally sent witnesses to talk about this agreement,” said Delahunt. “But their testimony raised so many new questions that the only clear message from today’s hearing is that the Administration sees no substantive role for Congress in determining future U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq.”
Today’s joint hearing of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight and the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia heard testimony from Ambassador David Satterfield, senior advisor to the Secretary and Coordinator to Iraq, U.S. State Department, Assistant Secretary of Defense on International Security Affairs Mary Beth Long as well as Professor Oona A. Hathaway from Yale Law School and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Lawrence Korb.
The current United Nations Security Council mandate in Iraq, which provides the international legal authority and protections for US and coalition troops, is set to expire at the end of the year. Rather than extending the UN mandate as has been done annually since 2005, the Bush administration has proposed replacing it with a bilateral long-term agreement.
Details of this planned agreement were first revealed in a “Declaration of Principles,” signed by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on November 26, 2007. That declaration, among other things, included commitments to defend Iraq’s “democratic system from external and internal threats” and to “provide security assurances and commitments to Iraq to deter foreign aggression.” Such commitments would require a treaty or other Congressional approval, according to legal experts who have previously testified before Delahunt’s panel.
Ambassador Satterfield testified that there were actually two agreements under discussion – a “status of forces agreement” which would govern the activities of U.S. forces in Iraq, and a broader “strategic framework agreement,” which would not be legally binding. He stated that the “strategic framework agreement” would address the topics outlined in the “Declaration of Principles” but argued that it would not include commitments to defend Iraq. He further testified that neither the SOFA nor the strategic framework agreement would require Congressional approval.
“It’s the position of this Administration that they do not need to come before Congress to receive authorization?” Delahunt asked. Both Secretary Long and Ambassador Satterfield replied “That’s correct.” Delahunt and others expressed opposition to the Bush Administration’s intention to embark on an agreement with Iraq – one that involves the inherent war-making powers of Congress under Article I of the Constitution – without approval or authorization from the Congress
Professor Hathaway testified that, in fact, any agreement which granted US forces the “authority to fight” would require Congressional approval. And Dr. Korb – a former Reagan Administration defense official – echoed that sentiment, pointing out that one of the most worrisome aspects of the Declaration of Principles is that it could commit the US to taking sides in a potential Iraqi civil war.
After the hearing, Delahunt said: “The Bush Administration is trying to circumvent the Congress and is, I daresay, on the edge of ignoring the Constitution itself. Determining the use of American forces in combat abroad is -- under our Constitution -- a shared responsibility between Congress and the President. I intend to hold more hearings on this topic until the Administration finally comes clean about its intentions here.”
-30-