Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H11158)
This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the United States Government should submit a draft bilateral status-of-forces agreement to Iraq by September 1, 2007. It lists topics the draft should cover, like underlining Iraqi sovereignty, defining the legal status of U.S. personnel subject to Iraqi jurisdiction, and setting coordination rules for joint investigations and operations. The resolution is a statement of opinion and does not create a binding legal obligation on the President or the executive branch.
As a concurrent resolution it would need approval by both the House and the Senate but is not sent to the President and does not have the force of law. It serves as a formal message of Congress rather than a binding legal requirement.
This concurrent resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. Government should submit a draft bilateral status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to the Government of Iraq by September 1, 2007.
It specifies that the draft should underline Iraqi sovereignty, address the legal status of U.S. personnel subject to Iraqi jurisdiction (subject to negotiation), and establish primacy and coordination mechanisms for investigations and operations with Iraqi forces, including police.
Concurrent resolution is non‑binding and does not become law; adoption is possible but it cannot create legally binding obligations.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions effectively as a concise 'sense of Congress' statement: it identifies the issue, sets a deadline, and lists substantive items a draft SOFA should cover, but it remains non‑binding and omits operational, fiscal, and accountability details.
Liberal emphasizes sovereignty and accountability for U.S. forces
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes sovereignty and accountability for U.S. forces
Likely supportive: views the resolution as a step toward respecting Iraqi sovereignty and holding U.S. forces accountable.
Sees a negotiated SOFA as consistent with winding down occupation-era arrangements. (Some impacts are speculative until text is negotiated.)
Generally supportive but cautious: views submitting a draft as a reasonable diplomatic step.
Wants negotiations to protect both Iraqi sovereignty and operational needs of U.S. forces.
Will judge based on specific legal and security provisions.
Skeptical: concerned a SOFA could erode legal protections and operational freedom for U.S. forces.
Supports diplomacy but wants guarantees preserving U.S. jurisdiction and command prerogatives.
Likely to press for strong troop protections.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Concurrent resolution is non‑binding and does not become law; adoption is possible but it cannot create legally binding obligations.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes sovereignty and accountability for U.S. forces
Concurrent resolution is non‑binding and does not become law; adoption is possible but it cannot create legally binding obligations.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions effectively as a concise 'sense of Congress' statement: it identifies the issue, sets a deadline, and lists substantive items a draft SOFA should cover, but…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.