Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee - The Defense Department's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. JOE COURTNEY (D-CT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And Secretary Gates, but Chairman Skelton actually circulated your commencement address at Annapolis to all the members of the Armed Services. And I just wanted to say as someone who read that, it was one of the healthiest statements about the role of the military in a constitutional democracy, and I think it should be required reading, not just for people in academies, but frankly, high school students. It was terrific. In the spirit of that, I just want to follow up with the 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, I mean, it stated, quote: That the U.S. would provide security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq and support Iraq in defending its internal and external threats. Now, that's more than a Status of Forces Agreement, I mean, which obviously covers the legal status of our troops there.

I mean, that's -- that's actually a security agreement.

And I just want to be clear in my own mind what you're telling us is to the administration's intent. I mean, are -- is -- is it your intent to enter into a security arrangement with the -- with the government of Iraq?

SEC. 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 in an agreement on how we are able to operate in Iraq once the U.N. 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 -- 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 a very open one with the Congress in terms of what's in the agreement, what we're asking for, and so on.

REP. COURTNEY: Well, that's certainly consistent with the Gates principles of your -- of address, and I -- and I -- but it also sounds different, what you just said, in terms of today's statement versus what was signed back in November.

SEC. GATES: And I am 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.

SEC. GATES: I will tell you -- and you know, we -- I would continue to say we do not seek and do not want bases -- permanent bases -- in Iraq. And I think that 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.

REP. COURTNEY: Thank you.

I probably don't have much time, Admiral Mullen, but since people in my district follow the shipbuilding budget like a box score back home, there is certainly already questions being raised about the figures that are in the budget and the purported maritime strategy of this country to get to a 313-ship fleet because it just -- the arithmetic or the math of an eight-ship request with a 313-ship goal, I mean, it just does not add up in terms of, you know, getting to that number. And we've heard a lot of talk here today about the fact that a lot of these issues are being pushed off into the future. I mean, is that what's happening here with the -- with the request?

ADM. MULLEN: I don't think in the case of the shipbuilding budget this year that was the case. I mean, the numbers were projected to be, I think, an additional four ships that were tied to the LCS program, and that program has been adjusted because of challenges that we had. I really think that the Navy has a good handle on that, and that the commitment is very much still there to get to 313 and the capabilities that represent that, and LCS is a really vital part of that. So it's more reflective of that than being able to -- with LCS not being able to be as robust as we want, let's take -- let's take that and put that somewhere else, I know you know, in terms of being able to build up from a base of one-a-year in the submarine world, that's a huge challenge and it's just not something we can do inside 12 months.

So the department and the Navy are still very committed to this 313 and to the investment. And I know the new CNO has been very public about his commitment as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source