Once again, the gentlelady talked about a strategic framework agreement. That does manifest security commitments, and that does have to be ratified. But that is not the Status of Forces Agreement. The Status of Forces Agreement is simply about the treatment of American military personnel in that particular place. We are talking about two different things; one that has to be ratified and the other that doesn't. And I have heard no good argument as to why, of the 80 Status of Forces Agreements that we have around the world, why this one has to be ratified by Congress and none of the others have to be.
On the recordMay 22, 2008
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the differences between a strategic framework agreement and a Status of Forces Agreement.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
Jun 25, 2008
I rise, Mr. Speaker, to talk about duty, honor, and country. Many times, Members of this great body rise to talk about those who wear the uniform of the United States who have fallen in the Iraq or the Afghanistan theater and to recount…
May 22, 2008
first let me express my great respect for the gentleman who is offering this amendment. He does wonderful work on the committee and truly has a heart for those who have been impacted by the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. On that…
Feb 11, 2015
I think it is reflective of another issue in federal contracting, which is access to capital.





