I can't say it any better than my colleague said it, so I will primarily associate myself with her remarks. The bottom line is, we have interests in Afghanistan. She mentioned a lot of the humanitarian interests. There are also national security interests. ISIS is present in Afghanistan. We have considerable concern about what they might do in terms of posing a transnational threat. We have taken strikes against there. There are many conceivable situations where we might need to work with Afghanistan in focusing on this issue, on humanitarian needs or national security needs. If it requires Congress to do it, it ties the hands of the President to basically be able to implement the policies that we will need to protect our interests. There is no need to have this requirement. Mr. Chair, I join my colleague in urging a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Share & report
More from Adam Smith
The 1033 program has been highly controversial because it has led to some pretty substantial pieces of military equipment being transferred to law enforcement--vehicles, in particular--and, to some degree, led to the militarization of the…
I would point out that the money from the IRS was not a pay-for. It actually increased the deficit. Under the rules of the House, the people who decide how to score those things scored it as adding money to it. It wasn't a pay-for. It was…
While I would not say at this point in particular Gaza is an ally of the U.S., as clearly they are not, I do not believe that Gaza is an enemy of the U.S., which is what is clearly being implied here. Yes, obviously, while I say there are…
Just briefly on the 702 issue. Section 702 needs to be reformed. There is no question about that. Nobody I know of, however, says that it should completely go away. If we don't do it on this bill, it completely goes away on January 1…





