By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff

Several House members strongly urged the Bush administration Wednesday to seek congressional approval for any agreement with Iraq defining the two nations’ political, economic and security relationship in the years ahead.

At a joint hearing of two House Foreign Affairs subcommittees, Democrats criticized the White House’s apparent plan to negotiate and implement such an agreement without congressional input or ratification. And one Republican on the panel described widespread GOP bristling at the administration’s disregard for Congress on important issues like this.

“I am a Republican, and at times I am embarrassed by the lack of cooperation that this president and his appointees have had with the legislative branch,” said Dana Rohrabacher of California. “There is a seething resentment by members of Congress who are Republicans by the fact that this administration has not even cooperated with us, much less with . . . members of some other party.”

The administration plans to finish writing by July a U.S.-Iraq pact that would cover relations between the two countries from 2009 onward.

In November, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a “declaration of principles” setting forth the broad outlines of the agreement. The most controversial element would provide “security assurances and commitments” to help Iraq with its internal and external defenses against a wide array of enemies.

In announcing the agreement last fall, the president’s top adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, told reporters he did not believe the agreement would constitute “a formal treaty, which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from Congress.”

But Democrats in both chambers are lining up behind measures that would effectively require congressional approval of any U.S.-Iraq agreement. The Senate bill (S 2426), by presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton , D-N.Y., would bar funding to carry out any agreement involving “commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole” that is not a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate under Article II of the Constitution or authorized by legislation.

The House measure (HR 4959), by Rosa DeLauro , D-Conn., would require the administration to consult with Congress when it develops the agreement. It also would bar spending appropriated funds to implement any agreement unless it is a ratified treaty.

Democrats underscored those points at Wednesday’s hearing of the two Foreign Affairs subcommittees: Middle East and South Asia, and International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight.

“The White House should be on notice that as a prerequisite to any agreement making the kind of commitments envisioned in the declaration of principles, Congress must be an integral part of the discussions and negotiations from the beginning,” said Bill Delahunt , D-Mass., chairman of the International Organizations panel.

He added that he has found no evidence of such consultation with Congress and that the administration declined invitations to four officials to testify about the issue.

Gary L. Ackerman , D-N.Y., chairman of the Middle East panel, said any commitment of U.S. troops to defend Iraq would require congressional approval. “Indeed, the American people would accept nothing less,” he said.

Ackerman allowed that the president might have the authority to sign an executive agreement that merely required the United States and Iraq to consult about the use of the U.S. military there. That would not be a treaty requiring Senate approval, he said, but he contended that leaving Congress on the sidelines of such an accord would be politically untenable.

“It’s a question of political wisdom and sustainability,” Ackerman said.

The November declaration set forth a potentially broad set of missions for U.S. forces in Iraq, Kenneth Katzman, a specialist on Middle East affairs with the Congressional Research Service, testified. Accomplishing such tasks could require the United States to maintain between 50,000 and 100,000 troops in Iraq, he said, citing interviews he conducted with defense experts.