Madam Chair, I pose the question: If the substance of the memo is already stated in law, then why do we need the memo? The answer is substantive and it is clear: It is political. This functionally useless memo, replete with unnecessarily vague language throughout, seems to attempt to create two classes of countries that receive U.S. security assistance: Israel, then everyone else. This memo was designed to shine a light and segregate Israel. As the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out in his letter, the NSM requires that written assurances from a country receiving U.S. weapons must be credible and reliable. What exactly does credible and reliable mean? If I was Israel, I would be concerned that Joe Biden would be the one in charge of figuring that out. When the recipient country says it will use defense articles in accordance with ``humanitarian law,'' which law or laws are President Biden and Secretary Blinken referring to? Are recipient countries supposed to know or assume what laws they are supposed to follow? Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Share & report
More from Andy Ogles
There must be accountability. The American people deserve better than petty, juvenile stunts in one of the most sacred chambers of government.
Mr. Chair, again, I thank my colleague for his comments. I think in light of the October 7 attack, in light of the violence we have seen on college campuses, and the very fact that Jewish students say they don't feel safe, it is important…
Mr. Chair, the definition of a ``foreign entity of concern'' in this bill would include any company subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a government like China's. While constructive, there is still nothing in the underlying text of…
As it stands, I think it falls short … but it’s work in progress, and we’ll keep working on it.





