I
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5626
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 13, 2008
Mr. Delahunt (for himself and Ms. DeLauro) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To reassert the constitutional role of Congress in making long-term security commitments, to defer significant long-term security commitments to Iraq to the next Administration and Congress, and to maintain international legal authority and immunity for United States Armed Forces in Iraq by promoting the extension of the United Nations mandate.
Short title
The Act may be cited as the
Protect Our Troops and Our
Constitution Act of 2008
.
Findings
Congress finds the following:
On November 26,
2007, by signing the Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of
Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States
of America (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the Declaration of
Principles
), the President of the United States pledged to negotiate by
July 2008 an agreement to replace the United Nations mandate that currently
provides international legal authority as well as immunity from Iraqi
prosecution for United States Armed Forces and other Coalition forces operating
in Iraq.
In the Declaration of Principles, the President pledged that this agreement would include the following security commitments by the United States:
Supporting
the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and
external threats.
.
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.
.
Supporting
the Republic of Iraq in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups, at the
forefront of which is Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups
regardless of affiliation, and destroy their logistical networks and their
sources of finance, and defeat and uproot them from Iraq.
.
However, in
testimony before the United States Senate on February 6, 2008, Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates effectively renounced this pledge by the President when he
said, [T]he status of forces agreement that is being discussed will not
contain a commitment to defend Iraq, and neither will any strategic framework
agreement. My understanding is—and it’s, frankly, a clearer point than I made
earlier—and we certainly do not consider the declaration of principles a
security commitment to the Iraqis.
.
On November 26,
2007, the President’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and
Afghanistan, General Douglas Lute, stated in a press briefing that permanent
United States military bases in Iraq will certainly be a key item for
negotiation next year
. On January 28, 2008, when signing into law the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which includes a ban
on permanent United States military bases in Iraq, President George W. Bush
indicated in a signing statement accompanying the bill that he would not be
bound by a provision of that law that prohibits the United States from
establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.
However, in
testimony before the Senate on February 6, 2008, Secretary of Defense Gates
stated, The fact is, in every meeting that I’ve taken part in, it has
been affirmed from the president on down that we do not want permanent bases in
Iraq.
.
General Lute
stated in a press briefing on November 26, 2007, in response to a question as
to whether the Administration would seek congressional input into the
agreement, 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.
. However, the Department of State
has failed to consult with congressional leaders on the Declaration of
Principles as required by the Department of State’s Circular 175 procedure,
which implements United States law regarding the conduct of negotiations for
international agreements.
However, in
testimony before the Senate on February 6, 2008, Secretary of Defense Gates
stated, My view is that there ought to be a great deal of openness and
transparency to the Congress as we negotiate this status of forces agreement so
that you can satisfy yourselves that those kinds of commitments are not being
made, and that there are no surprises in this.
.
According to the Congressional Research
Service, while the primary purpose of a status of forces agreement between the
United States and another country or organization is typically to provide
United States Armed Forces with immunity from local prosecution, and no
existing status of forces agreement authorizes offensive combat operations by
United States Armed Forces (absent reference to a treaty, law, or United
Nations Security Council resolution), Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice have written in an opinion piece published February
13, 2008, in the Washington Post that it is the intention of the Administration
to have the status of forces agreement with Iraq include the authority
to fight
for United States Armed Forces engaged in combat
operations.
The inconsistencies between the various statements and pledges described in paragraphs (1) through (8) raise significant questions about the Administration’s objectives in seeking new agreements with Iraq.
Since August 6, 2004, United States Armed Forces and other Coalition forces in Iraq have had international legal authority to operate in Iraq under the United Nations mandate for the Multinational Force–Iraq, most recently renewed in December 2007 until December 31, 2008, and have had immunity from local prosecution under an Iraqi law known as CPA Order 17, which is dependent on that mandate.
The Iraqi Ambassador to the United
States, Samir Sumaidaie, said on February 5, 2008, If we cannot have an
agreement by that time [December 31, 2008,] we would have no choice but to go
back to the Security Council. Basically, we need to have some legal cover for
foreign forces.
.
Limitation on use of funds
No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to any department or agency of the United States may be used—
to establish or maintain any permanent or long-term United States military base or facility in Iraq; or
to implement any
agreement that is consistent with the security commitments of the United States
to Iraq under the Declaration of Principles, including the security commitments
described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of section 1(2) of this Act, or any
agreement that provides authority to fight
for United States
Armed Forces engaged in combat operations, other than for self-defense
purposes, unless the agreement is in the form of a treaty with respect to which
the Senate has given its advice and consent to ratification under Article II of
the Constitution of the United States or the agreement is approved by an Act of
Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Sense of Congress
It is the sense of Congress that—
long-term relations between the United States and Iraq should be determined by the United States Administration taking office on January 20, 2009;
in determining its policy toward Iraq, the United States Administration referred to in paragraph (1) should consult fully with the United States Congress, the Government of Iraq, Coalition partners, and Iraq’s neighbors; and
to maintain current international legal authority as well as immunity from Iraqi prosecution for United States Armed Forces and other Coalition forces operating in Iraq while the United States Administration referred to in paragraph (1) determines United States policy toward Iraq, the current United States Administration should encourage the Government of Iraq to request the renewal of the United Nations mandate for Iraq beyond December 31, 2008.
