Armed Services Hearing on Defense Budget
| Rep. Tauscher: "Two things concern me, one are the signing statements that the President has been signing and the Status of Forces agreement that we're apparently negotiating with the Iraqis. And they dovetail in some ways, particularly because I think that these signing statements are very disturbing, and I think you have to hear from us, as you've just said, a law is a law. Constitutional statute is not optional. And I think that the President needs to understand that these signing statements may be whimsical for him and they may be what he really thinks he can do as an assertion of executive power, but the law's a law." |
Extended transcript:
Rep. Tauscher: "Two things concern me, one are the signing statements that the President has been signing and the Status of Forces agreement that we're apparently negotiating with the Iraqis. And they dovetail in some ways, particularly because I think that these signing statements are very disturbing, and I think you have to hear from us, as you've just said, a law is a law. Constitutional statute is not optional. And I think that the President needs to understand that these signing statements may be whimsical for him and they may be what he really thinks he can do as an assertion of executive power, but the law's a law. When we pass the law and he signs it, that's it. And signing statements may have some political rhetorical point of view for him, but he needs to hear from us that they don't mean anything, and the law's a law. On the Status of Forces agreement, Mr. Secretary, can you assure us that the Congress will be involved to the extent that there will be no permanent bases (and this is one place where, by the way, the signing statement and what the Status Forces Agreement apparently could be negotiating). It's very important - we have passed in the House very strong legislation that there'll be no permanent bases. The President had a signing statement basically saying he's going to do what he wants. But we have the Status of Forces agreement that's being negotiated, that we want to have some input into, especially since it has long term effects. Can you give us some reassurance as to what you think the status of it is, and anything else you can do to reassure us that we're going to be part of it?"Secretary Gates: "First of all let me say that we do not want, nor will we seek permanent bases in Iraq. I don't know the specifics about the signing statement except that I suspect it was more on Constitutional grounds than it was on the substantive issue of of the bases in Iraq because the President and Senator Rice and I have all been explicit that we do not want and will not seek permanent bases. I would also tell you that the status of forces agreement will not contain any commitment, any security commitment to Iraq and I believe that the Administration has committed to an open and transparent process and consultation with the Congress so that Congress is aware of what's being negotiated in the SOFA. We have at any given time eighty to a hundred SOFA's, none of which have been submitted for ratification, but in light of, particularly in light of the sensitivity of this issue it seems to me that transparency and openness as we go through this process is important."
| Secretary Gates: "No, the status of forces agreement will not have a security component to it. It will not be a security agreement with the Iraqis..." Rep. Courtney: "Well that's consistent with the 'Gates Principles' of the address, but it also sounds different, what you just said, in terms of today's statement versus what was signed back in November..." Secretary Gates: "And I'm told that the Declaration of Principles that was signed in November was not considered by our government to be a security commitment." |
Extended transcript:
Rep. Courtney: "Chairman Skelton actually circulated your commencement address at Annapolis to all the members of the Armed Services Committee, and I just want to say as somebody who read that, it was one of healthiest statements about the role of military in a constitutional democracy, and I think it should be required reading not just for people in academies, but frankly for high school students, it was terrific. In the spirit of that, I just want to follow up on that last colloquy with the Chairman on this issue of us, Congress and this effort to negotiate with the Iraqi government. When President Bush signed his statement back in November with President Maliki, it stated - quote - that the US would provide 'security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq' and support Iraq in defending... 'internal and external threats.' Now that's more than a status of forces agreement, which obviously covers the legal status of our troops there, but that's actually a security agreement. And I just want to be clear in my own mind what you're telling us as to the Administration's intent. Is it your intent to enter into a security arrangement with the government of Iraq?"Secretary Gates: "No, the status of forces agreement will not have a security component to it. It will not be a security agreement with the Iraqis. It will be like virtually all, well like most status of forces agreements, basically the rules of the road and an agreement on how we are able to operate in Iraq once the UN Security Council resolution authorizing that activity is concluded or runs out. And so it's about what kind of, well, a question would be will we still have the authority to detain people? Another one would be what is going to be the role of -- what kind of immunities do contractors have? So those are the kinds of issues that are going to be addressed in this status of forces agreement. And as I've said earlier, because of the special nature of this agreement, only because of the sensitivity of the issue here in Washington or in the country, I believe that the government's approach to negotiating this with the Iraqis should be very open with the Congress in terms of what's in the agreement, what we're asking for, and so on."
Rep. Courtney: "Well that's consistent with the 'Gates Principles' of the address, but it also sounds different, what you just said, in terms of today's statement versus what was signed back in November..."
Secretary Gates: "And I'm told that the Declaration of Principles that was signed in November was not considered by our government to be a security commitment."
Rep. Courtney: "And that will be reassuring, I think, to many people who are worried about tying the hands of a future administration..."
Secretary Gates: "I will tell you and I will continue to say we do not seek and do not want bases, permanent bases in Iraq and, and I think nothing that I have seen in sort of the broad outlines of what we are trying to work out with the Iraqis would commit a next administration."