I was pretty dissapointed in our new seanator Bob Casey at first, but he seems to be getting better.

His official web site has a few new and interesting items in it about climate change and food.

http://casey.senate.gov/

And now this - a press release distributed by his staff -he challenged Bush's secretive negotiations to write a new treaty with Iraq giving us a permanent presence there.

He's making me a bit prouder to be a Pennsylvanian.

Casey Urges President Bush to Work with Congress on any Long-term
Security Agreements With Iraq

WASHINGTON, DC- Speaking on the Senate floor today U.S. Senator Bob
Casey (D-PA) urged President Bush to work with Congress on any future
long-term security agreements with Iraq.

"Unfortunately, the Administration is handling these negotiations in
the same manner that has characterized its entire approach to Iraq
since 2003:  with unnecessary secrecy, a disdain for Congressional
input and an arrogant insistence that its course of action is the only
reasonable option," said Casey.

In March, Senator Casey was joined by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) in
sending a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee urging them to
prohibit the use of funds in the FY08 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations bill to carry out any bilateral agreement providing
U.S. security pledges or commitments to Iraq without prior
Congressional approval.  The language was included in the bill that
was passed out of the Committee, but was ultimately taken out.



Last December, Senator Casey spearheaded a letter signed by Senators
Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Hillary
Clinton (D-NY) and Jim Webb (D-VA) to President Bush warning him
against rushing the United States into long-term security commitments
to Iraq without the full participation and consent of Congress.  The
letter was in response to a preliminary agreement reached in early
December between the U.S. and Iraqi governments on long-term bilateral
cooperation on political, security and economic matters, with a final
agreement to be concluded by this summer.



Senator Casey went on to say, "for the President of the United States
to dismiss these concerns, expressed by some of the leading foreign
policy and national security voices in the Congress, as mere "noise,"
represents a fundamental misreading of our constitutional system of
government."



Below is the full text of Senator Casey's remarks as delivered:

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two agreements under
negotiation between the United States and Iraq that have grabbed
headlines in recent days as more and more Iraqi politicians announce
their strong opposition.  These two agreements will shape the presence
of American military forces in Iraq long beyond the tenure of the
current Administration.  Unfortunately, the Administration is handling
these negotiations in the same manner that has characterized its
entire approach to Iraq since 2003:  with unnecessary secrecy, a
disdain for Congressional input, and an arrogant insistence that its
course of action is the only reasonable option.

The first agreement to which I am referring is a proposed Status of
Forces Agreement, known by its acronym SOFA, which would define the
authorities, privileges and immunities of American troops on Iraqi
soil and allow U.S. forces to remain in Iraq beyond December 31st,
when a United Nations Security Council mandate authorizing the
presence of coalition troops is scheduled to expire.  Administration
officials insist that another extension of the UN mandate, which has
been repeatedly renewed on an annual basis, is no longer possible; the
Iraqis seek to return to a normal status in the international system
and no longer want to be the subject of a UN-authorized military
operation.

The second agreement involves a more ambiguous Strategic Framework,
which would lay out the broad political, security, and economic ties
between our two nations.  While the Administration has backed away
from previous statements indicating that the United States was
prepared to offer a binding security guarantee to Iraq's government to
come to its defense in the event of foreign aggression or internal
turmoil, it is still prepared to agree to "consult" with the Iraqi
government under such circumstances.  While a promise to consult in
the event of aggression has been extended by the United States to many
nations around the world, and is known in diplomatic jargon as a
security arrangement, it still raises concerns when the United States
maintains a large scale troop presence in a nation.  Any promise to
consult with a foreign government takes on much greater weight when
more than 100,000 U.S. troops are stationed there.

The United States Congress, and the American public, first learned of
these two proposed agreements when President Bush and Prime Minister
Maliki signed a "Declaration of Principles" last November outlining
their shared intention to conclude negotiations by July 31st.  A week
later, joined by five other U.S. Senators, I sent a letter to
President Bush expressing deep concern over the proposed security
guarantees to the Iraqi government and the insistence of the
Administration that it could conclude both of these agreements without
Congressional input or approval.  Since then, many Members of
Congress, on both sides of the aisle, I might add, have expressed deep
unease with the Administration's approach.  Some of the questions we
have raised, including at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing
in April, include:

·        Why the sudden insistence on termination of the United
Nations Security Council mandate for U.S. and other coalition troops
in Iraq at the end of this year?  Why not simply extend the mandate
for another year, and allow the next President to negotiate a
bilateral accord with the Iraqis instead of a lame duck President?

·        Why would we accept a bilateral accord with the Iraqi
government that incorporates greater restrictions on U.S. troops,
including limitations on the authority to conduct combat operations
and detain prisoners of war, than the current UN mandate offers?  I am
a strong opponent of an open-ended U.S. combat presence in Iraq, but
so long as American troops remain in Iraq, they should retain the
discretion to conduct necessary operations to ensure their safety and
security; American troops can never answer to a foreign government,
especially one as dysfunctional as the Iraqi government.

·        Why has the Iraqi government committed to submitting these
agreements to the approval of the Iraqi Parliament, acknowledging that
a national consensus in Iraq must exist in support of their
implementation, yet the Bush Administration stubbornly insists that
the U.S. Congress can have no formal role in approval, even refusing
to share draft text with key Members?

·        Why did the Administration first characterize the Strategic
Framework agreement as a non-binding "declaration", but has now
changed its tune and has agreed, at the request of the Iraqis, to
categorize it as an executive agreement that imposes binding
obligations on both sides?

·        Why does the Iraqi Prime Minister, Mr. Maliki, have to travel
to Tehran to assure the Iranian government that a bilateral agreement
between the United States and Iraq poses no threat to Iran?  Does the
Administration intend to use Iraq as a launching pad for future
military strikes against Iran?  Why is Iran interfering in the
internal affairs of its neighbor?

At a news conference yesterday during his overseas trip to Europe,
President Bush responded to a question on the ongoing negotiations by
asserting, "There's all kind of noise in their system and our system.
I think we'll get the agreement done."  I won't comment on the voices
of opposition we see emerging in Iraq, but I am concerned that, once
again, the President is dismissing legitimate concerns raised by the
Congress and outside policy experts as mere "noise".  There is
bipartisan unease over the course of U.S.-Iraq negotiations and
puzzlement over the supposed urgency of concluding these accords
instead of merely extending the United Nations mandate.  For the
President of the United States to dismiss these concerns, expressed by
some of the leading foreign policy and national security voices in the
Congress, as mere "noise", represents a fundamental misreading of our
constitutional system of government.

As on other issues, I encourage the President to listen closely to his
Secretary of Defense.  In a television interview yesterday, Bob Gates
responded to a question over Congressional input on these agreements
by acknowledging "If it emerges in a way that does make binding
commitments that fit the treaty-making powers or treaty-ratification
powers of the Senate, then it will have to go in that direction."

Mr. President, there is no urgency to concluding long-term agreements
that define the future of the U.S. military presence in Iraq.  There
is even less reason to negotiate agreements that impose unhelpful
restrictions on American military personnel and obligate the United
States to an ambiguous commitment to Iraq's future security.  I urge
the President to acknowledge the important and essential role that the
Congress has to play here.  If the President insists on completing
these agreements during the last days of his Administration, he should
fully involve the relevant Congressional Committees in the ongoing
negotiations and agree to submit any final accords for Congressional
approval.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.