Washington, DC — Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, delivered the following remarks during the House Foreign Affairs Committee Markup to find Secretary of State Antony Blinken in contempt of Congress, which passed through Committee today.   

His remarks, as delivered, can be read below:  

“This, indeed, is a sad day for this Committee. A sad day for a Committee that should be focused on the security of the United States of America. A security that should not be utilized for a political stunt made for FOX News. That's what we'll see tomorrow. That's what this is: a political stunt. Plain and simple. You know, holding someone in contempt is a grave and rarely used congressional power meant for instances of real obstruction. All this is, is a rushed vote that undermines the seriousness of that power.  

“It is objectively political in purpose. Given that Secretary Blinken has already willingly responded to questions on the Afghanistan withdrawal in 14 public congressional hearings since August 2021, and at the Secretary's direction, the State Department has produced over 20,000 pages of documents. Made 15 Department witnesses available for interviews, enabled members to view the July 2021 dissent cable on Afghanistan, and provided thousands of pages of interviews and interview notes from its own Afghanistan After Action review.  

“There is no obstruction here. That's cooperation. This is political theater. Secretary Blinken has engaged in good faith to reach a compromise on complying with the Chairman's subpoena to testify again, including by providing alternative dates for his testimony. In fact, which I did not hear in a letter referred to and memorialized two phone conversations that they had on August 19th and on September 3rd, on which the Secretary personally sought to reach an accommodation by sharing his availability to testify.  

“And if the Chairman insisted, and it was dates that he was not available, offered alternative witnesses for hearing dates and let me just say that the alternative dates were denied. Because today, Secretary Blinken is with the President. Where is he? He's at the UN conducting high-level diplomacy to advance the national security interests of the United States at the United Nations on topics ranging from Russia's illegal war in Ukraine—which I hope all of us are serious about—doing his job getting support to end a humanitarian crisis in Sudan, to working to get a ceasefire in Gaza.  

“Why is there suddenly a rush to hold this contempt vote when the Secretary has made it very clear time and time again that he's willing to testify? Now, if it's the Majority's objective to conduct fact finding and debate the Chairman's legislative proposal in a hearing with Secretary Blinken, those objectives of which I would agree. But what's the urgency?  

“Is it the elections coming up on November the 5th? Is it politics that's causing this urgency? Why are we rushing to hold the Secretary of State in contempt now when we know that he's willing to testify on any other date when he's not in Egypt, working on a ceasefire in Gaza, or meeting with multiple visiting dignitaries in New York?  

“In fact, I was there all day yesterday and they all were waiting to talk to him. Numbers of countries wanted to speak to him and the President about the world issues that are going on. And fact of the matter is, if he wasn't there, probably you will say that he's neglecting his duties, that he should be there talking to the world leaders, trying to get things at hand.  

“It's not difficult for the American people to see this for what it is—political theater—an attempt to put another senior Biden Administration official’s name into negative headlines, just like the Majority did when they peppered their own investigative report with over 200 references to the Vice President, though she was only mentioned 3 times and more than 3,000 pages of testimony all of a sudden trying to insert her name.  

“Why? One reason: politics. If we were truly concerned with additional fact-finding, we could follow the testimony in our investigation, which revealed President Trump ordered multiple troop drawdowns despite the Taliban's lack of compliance with the Doha Deal. Don't want to talk about that. You could seek testimony from former Trump officials with knowledge of the former President's decision making.  

“Don't want to talk about that. We could call for testimony from former Trump officials who witnesses in our investigation said did not prepare for the looming May 2021 withdrawal date and were uncooperative during President Biden's transition to office. Don't want to talk about that. And yet, as evidenced by the Majority's investigation and also by this week's rushed resolution to the House floor, Republicans contort themselves at every opportunity to avoid [mentioning] former President Trump, except to revise the historical record about his actions.  

“But for the Republicans, this investigation is just not about serious fact-finding or oversight. It's about narrowing the scope of the end of the United States' longest war to just a few months. During the Biden Administration. Not for the purpose of getting the facts right, but for a political show to play politics. You know, we owe—we owe it to all those who served. We owe to the 2,461 servicemembers who made the ultimate sacrifice during our 20 years in Afghanistan, including the 13 brave souls killed by an ISIS bomb at Abbey Gate as they helped evacuate more than 120,000 people to conduct a nonpartisan oversight looking at the entire 20-year war effort. That's what this Committee should be doing.  

“That's serious review to make sure not that we play politics, but we make sure that we look at what happens and what we should be doing in the future. That's what should be taking place. If you want to object to President Biden's decision to finally end this war, then that's what you should say. You are opposed to President Biden ending the war, not hide behind an oversight charade.  

“Tell us your alternatives. What would you have done? Would you have stayed at war? And your ideas on how we can do better going forward? If that's going after the facts and not having a political charade. You know, we could have policy disagreements on this, but our oversight tools should not be abused to try to get a political partisan game.  

“So, I strongly oppose this hasty and political contempt report, and urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it.” 

###