http://biden.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=C3AD16DD-697E-4FED-96C9-2A177EE3F206We write regarding the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq. The Committee held a hearing on these two agreements on April 10, during which Administration witnesses told the Committee that the Executive Branch would consult closely with Congress “throughout the entire process.”
Thus far, the Administration has not followed through on this commitment. Members submitted questions following the April hearing, many of which remain unanswered. During a May 21st briefing of staff -- the first since the April hearing -- Administration officials indicated that the negotiations have been progressing, but that Iraq has proposed significant changes to the form of the agreements. Administration officials also indicated that Iraq may be reluctant to grant some of the authorities the United States now has by virtue of the U.N. Security Council Resolution, which are required for U.S. operations. The hearing and staff briefings have provided scant detail on what these agreements will contain, despite clear bipartisan expressions at the hearing that our Committee and the Congress as a whole expected the Administration to be fully transparent about its intentions and the progress of deliberations.
The Administration is attempting to conclude a long-term agreement that will provide a “security arrangement” to a strategically important country in which 140,000 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of civilian contractors currently are stationed. Even under many withdrawal scenarios, we may have a substantial number of troops in Iraq for an extended period of time. Our troops will continue to face an extraordinarily complex environment that could include contingencies ranging from ethnic strife and internal territorial disputes to terrorist attacks, foreign incursions, or even coup attempts. Regardless of election outcomes in November, the Congress will be responsible for supporting our troops and diplomats and the missions to which they will be committed under such agreements. The Constitutional and legal implications of these potentially sweeping arrangements remain an issue of deep concern to many in Congress. Even without the appeals expressed at our April hearing, it should be apparent to the Administration that Congress requires much more detailed consultations than have been forthcoming thus far.
Furthermore, the question of whether Congress or the Senate must approve these agreements remains an open issue, and will not be resolved until the agreements are concluded. In this regard, however, we note that both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees included language barring implementation of these agreements in the supplemental appropriations legislation. While these restrictions may not be in the version the President will sign, this activity indicates a level of discomfort in Congress that will not abate on its own.
...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
