eastern, our american tv series, congress investigates looks at historical investigations that led to changes in policy and law. the senate committee led by the chairman explores other subjects. find a full schedule on our program guide and watch online at any te on c-span.org/history. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including media com. >> we believe whether you live here or right here or way out in the middle of anywhere, you should have access to fast, reliable internet. that's why we're leading the way.

>> media com supports c-span as a public service among these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. host: joining us is william hartung, a senior research fellow. thanks for giving us your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: can you tell us about the institute, the philosophical approach you take when it comes to foreign policy and how you're funded? guest: we're bipartisan.

host: tell us you want less war but how does the topic of those arm sales, arm transfers, how do they factor into conflicts across the world? guest: you know, the text book argument is that they're there to promote stability and help our allies defend themselves. but in some cases that certainly is true, as in ukraine trying to protect itself from russia's invasion. in other cases they can make war more likely by arming oppressive regimes or countries invading their neighbors to a negative effect like the saudi intervention in yemen, for example. i think sort of what's needed is more evaluation of when these arm sales serve the purpose of defense and when they can actually make difficult situations worse. host: i want to ask you what's the difference between a arm sale and an arm transfer? guest: a transfer is a broader category. any way in which the arms are

given to the other country. there's military aid as in the case of israel. there's sales for countries like saudi arabia that have plenty of money to spend. so it covers both categories. host: so when it comes to the u.s., i guess, if there's a philosophy or a standard when it comes to who we give arms to, what is that standard and how do you think it should be changed? guest: well, on paper, there's plenty of good language about, you know, not arming countries that have systematic records of human rights abuses, countries involved in aggression. but ofted in service of other goals set by the administration or there's a waiver. in the case of israel there's a provision of not arming those blocking u.s. humanitarian aid which has been the case in gaza.

partly creating those provisions to be enforced. also congress needs a stronger role. in theory they can vote them down through a vetoproof majority, they've never successfully done that. they did vote against a bomb sale to saudi arabia but that was vetoed by president trump. one way to go about it is for a certain category of sale, congress would have to approve them affirmatively as opposed to just suffer often a veto to block their intentions. i think more transparency about who we are selling to and how the weapons are being used and enforcement of some of the provisions in existing law. guest: do these typically start with presidents desire to do so. guest: usually there is a

request from the allied country for certain equipment. they coordinate with the pentagon in terms of assessing their needs the state department will have to approve major sales and the president's opinion is the ultimate decision but that often only comes into play in major deals in controversial sales. president biden has been firm about keeping the arms flowing to israel despite all the deaths and the conflict and the slaughter. i think the president is a key player. in other cases it can be handled. >> to what degree does the president itself have to make the case to congress to allow the sales and transfers to happen. >> generally perhaps with instructions from the white house it would be the state department or the pentagon making those cases and it could be to an individual senator a

testimony, there could be questions from foreign affairs committees. each case is different but it -- the major deals where the president is a driving force. host: we will continue our discussion on arms sales and arm transfers by desk to other countries by the united states but if you want to ask questions you can call in on the line. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also text your comments in at 202-748-8003. if the state department is making a request to what degree does congress have the ability to step in and say we have concerns? guest: one way is a joint resolution of disapproval. it would generally need a vetoproof majority. there are other methods. heads of the foreign affairs

committees can put a hold on certain sales which is a custom, not a law. in certain circumstances the president might override but often they do observe those holds. if congress makes enough noise sometimes the administration will reconsider, they will hold back, they will change the weapons involved in the package. but ultimately the demonstration has a lot of leeway because congress tools are somewhat weak in really enforcing its desires in these matters. >> can you expand on that? guest: for example they need -- it's very rare you would get that in the house and senate and since the holds are a custom as opposed to a law they can be overridden as well, they can also be emergency declared by the president where basic

notifications don't come into play. the washington post found out of 100 deal since october 7 only two were formerly -- formally notified publicly. the administration for whatever reason enabling the killing being done in gaza they don't want the public to know or debate the details. host: at the stage we are seeing events happening in the mid east when it comes to hamas and israel what do you think about the nature of congress wanting to get more muscle in these types of sales or transfer? >> i think in this case it would be quite valuable. there's been some key members who have spoken out saying we should stop sales until israel agrees to stop the killings, to a cease-fire to letting all humanitarian aid in. i think that makes sense given

the court of justice at the could be a case of what's being done accounts for genocide and certainly there are very serious human rights abuses and i would say war crimes being committed. for the reputation of the united states, for the lives of the people in gaza i think ultimately for the future of israel i think the feeling there has to stop. if congress were to push that i think that would be a positive step. host: if you are on the line wait a little bit, i want to play you a little bit of what the secretary of state had to say just last week when they talked about the continued transfers to israel. it's a bit of a lengthy quote but we will play it and get your thoughts on it. [video clip] >> this is also true with other countries, there are a number of open cases, open requests of

previously notified cases which had not been fully fulfilled or completed. in the case of israel for example there are many requests that were made and were notified congress. a decade or more. and it takes time often to produce the material or the weapons in question, the parts, etc.. these complex systems could take years to actually allow us to fulfill the request and agreement. so many of the cases that you occasionally report on now underwent congressional review years ago and were notified years ago. well before the conflict in gaza started. >> congress never had a chance

-- >> all of this context is important. we of course also go out of our way to make sure that we are actually going above and beyond the law for what's required. in briefing congress. we go to the relevant oversight committees, we make sure that they are aware of ongoing transfers above the statutory threshold. even ones that they approved a long time ago. and even when there's no requirement that there be additional notice or additional approval of any kind. we've been focused on trying to make sure that october 7 can never happen again. but having said that, the security relationship we have with israel is not just about gaza, hamas, october 7.

it's also about the threats posed to israel by hezbollah, by iran, by various other actors in the region. each one of which has vowed one way or another to try and destroy israel. so the weapons, the systems that israel has sought to acquire and as i said have been contracted in many cases for many years goes to self-defense. they go to deterrence trying to avoid more conflict. host: that's the defense from the secretary of state, what do you think of that offense? guest: i think there's a lot of weaknesses there. first of all the fact that they were passed through congress years ago, this is an entirely different situation. 36 thousand dead, aid workers killed, aid impeded, people driven from their homes. so whatever congress said 10 years ago is not at all relevant now. he also said they go out of

their way to notify congress of sales above threshold but the point is most of the sale since october 7 have purposely been put below threshold therefore they can avoid telling congress and the public to that degree. to call what's happening now defense is really to stretch the language beyond what you can really accept. the kind of killing that's happening there is certainly not defense. israel has also for example attacked an iranian consulate in syria which risks provoking a wider war. it can certainly defend itself. i think he's mixing two issues. a lot of the things going to israel are out of stockpiles so they are going immediately and they were not approved. it's almost like the secretary of state is describing a world

that does not exist at this crucial moment. >> we will hear from katie in maryland, democrats line. go ahead. >> good morning, thank you for taking my call. often with these foreign wars you hear if we are not providing money directly we might provide aid in the forms of weapon systems are military systems in the argument sometimes that money goes back to american economy and american companies. my question is to what extent if any to american economic factors in these arms transfers and may be industry or corporate influence in the transfer of these arms. guest: i think it comes into play if there is an effort to block the sale. in the case of israel the president has the political commitment and ideological commitment so it wasn't likely the industry drops out but he has been leaning on the issue of jobs in the united states especially to try and push you the ukraine package secondarily

with respect to arms to israel. the problem with that is selling arms as a life-and-death issue. i do not think you can hook it to jobs in particular and jobs related to arms sales depending on spending produce fewer jobs in a most anything else that the government can do. if we want jobs let's have a jobs program with keep our foreign policy focused on our security of our allies, protecting individuals from repression and attack. i think the president is kind of echoing a little bit what president trump did pushing arms sales to saudi arabia. i think it was wrong then and it is wrong now. it's a political move that's hard to resist in some ways because the president is trying to get republicans on his side and people who may be on the fence but i think if he can make the case on security grounds or

on human rights grounds i think bringing the demand stick economics into it is not really a legitimate way to promote this policy. >> william joins us for this discussion on arms sales and transferred other countries. there is an overriding principle or at least the act called the arms export coroact. we will show this to our audiceut can you describe what that means and what it rv as far as a framework of transfer of as or sales of arms. >> people don't ask about that very often. it was implemented in the 1970's in a time when members of congress got a most no information about arms sales. greece and turkey were using weapons to fight over cyprus. we were funneling weapons to angola to try and overthrow the government there. there were many other deals.

there was a huge increase in sales to the middle east partly because president nixon wanted the strategy of more arms sales unless troops. it was done at a moment when congress felt like it was a flood of arms sales and they needed input. so they passed the arms control act which meant major deals had to be reported in detail to congress, congress has the right to vote them down. the idea this would give congress the idea -- the inputted needed to be in equal branch of government. it's been so difficult to use the act for example to block dubious sales that it needs to be upgraded and members like tim mcgovern, nancy mace have a specific bill that would sort of flip the script on some major sales and say congress must affirmatively approve these deals not just be able to bring

a vetoproof majority against them. israel, nato, japan using the old system would be exempted from this approval but at least it would create some leverage for congress that does not exist now. host: ultimately that would have to be signed by a president, how likely is a president to give that up. host: you need strong -- guest: you need strong support from congress and the public. i think one of the arguments would be if these are in our interest why wouldn't you be able to make the case? why shouldn't congress have -- serve a stronger role. it would certainly be a debate but i think there would be some downsides to a president saying congress shouldn't have the right to block sales to a dictator or a country like saudi arabia and cause thousands of deaths in yemen. it would be a political fight as

there is over most foreign policy issues. i think it would be a positive reform and i think if it got that far pressure could come to bear for the president to sign it. host: democrats line, marty, you are up next. caller: good morning. i was wondering if this is a new way of looking at things but if all the money we spend on bombs and offensive weapons but if we had paid reparations to the palestinian people for having really taken their property in order to create the state of israel? it's just another thought. maybe an apology and reparations and maybe we wouldn't have so much conflict over there. thank you so much. guest: i think certainly recognizing the humanity and the rights of the palestinian people should be a policy in the united states, whether it's the

mechanism i would have to reflect on that but the immediate task is to stop the killing and i think the best way to do that is to stop the arms flow and stop enabling that until there is a cease-fire and a commitment to humanitarian aid, once that's done than the larger long-term kind of arrangement can -- for them to live in peace would have to be addressed. it's not easy but it's certainly not to happen while this kind of slaughter proceeds. host: if arms are transferred or weapons are transferred to another country does it come with conditions of any kind? guest: there often are conditions. the president recently put out a memorandum saying countries should sign a statement saying they will abide by u.s. law on things like human rights and humanitarian aid flow. the problem with that is it

doesn't really have a lot of enforcement. basically they take a look at whether the country is observing u.s. law they will report back in 45 days and they can either say make them promise again, the administration spokesperson already jumped the gun recently and said we haven't seen any violations by israel which just stretches credulity given what we can see with our own eyes what's happening in gaza. host: a headline to show you when and comes to israel there's a question of whether the white house currently pressing congress to approve f-15 sales to israel and congress looking back at that. factoring the conversation on the overall process. guest: one of the arguments the administration has made is these planes won't be delivered for

years but to push forward another arms deal while israel is doing what it's doing in gaza is a must get another staple of support for the nine yahoo! government. -- for the netanyahu government. it could turn into disapproval and the two houses or could be a strong statement to try and persuade the administration to think twice. sometimes those statements will derail slow. it's certain -- it comes down to can you change the mind of the president and his team and so far they have been very resistant to limiting arms sales to israel over gaza or anything else. >> considering he was a longtime member was on the others of the process. guest: it's interesting because

when he was in the senate, he introduced the idea of congress having to affirmatively approve sales very similar to the bill the rest -- that they are putting forward. the president has not spoken about that or been vocally supportive of it. i think often there is a switch and some members at least will speak out against sales that violates human rights or prolongs wars. i did a report for quincy that found 46 conference in the world , 34 of them wanted -- 31 of our recipients were designated not free looking at these things. there's a lot to be said about shifting priorities in arms

sales. with more power to do something about it. they have to go hat in hand, please reconsider this. host: with the quincy institute for responsible statecraft as their senior research fellow. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. a text saying is there any scenario where it's possible to suspend arms to israel immediately? guest: it's in the hands of the president in terms of things on the verge of being delivered, future commitments. ultimately president biden can make that happen.

he would have to choose to do so which he has yet to do. host: democrats line, good morning. caller: c-span was running on the 70 for the anniversary of nato and i caught some of it in between the eclipse and all and i'm watching it this morning. how much of this is arms and transfers for nato, could you answer that? guest: in prior years for growing markets were in the middle east and asia with a steady flow of nato members. since russia's invasion of ukraine there's been a tilt towards more sales to europe. poland made deals for $40 billion worth of u.s. weaponry which is unheard of.

germany is talking about buying the f-35 which was not expected and certainly related to russian actions in ukraine. the important thing about nato is its role as an alliance to defend europe makes sense in the fact european countries could coordinate and use resources better to defend themselves without as large a u.s. role in europe but then when nato gets into questions of wanting to play a role vis-a-vis china or other u.s. interventions around the world, that goes beyond the main value. continues to be part of the discussion about architecture for the world. host: gary, republican line.

caller: thank you. i am bewildered on why the guest is against arms for israel. with the attacks that occurred in october, correct me if i'm wrong, her there still hostages -- are there still hostages in play? it is certainly a long history lesson to the oppression of the jews. why would we be trying to pull them back from establishing peace for themselves for the foreseeable future? blocking their military pursuits

just seems counterproductive to longer-term peace not only within that region but also in the brower. -- in the world. hamas and others need to understand that if these types of behaviors continue, the results will be severe and unrelenting. i realize that people are getting killed in these military strikes. some by accident. it is war. consequences arise out of these types of conflicts. host: tanks for the call -- thanks for the call. guest: that is a good articulation of the opposite view. what has happened in gaza is almost unprecedented.

13,000 people killed in short order, the impeding of aid has put people at risk of starvation. this is far more than responding to hamas as for fish -- as vicious as those attacks were. i don't think it serves the long-term interest of israel. i don't think it will prevent a hamas from rising again. i do not think attacking an entire territory in response to attack by specific groups is the path to peace. host: according to the state department earlier this year, the total value of transferred defense articles totals $81 billion representing a 56% increase.

what people think about that increase? guest: a lot of it was to europe. there is this thing that can happen in the pentagon where the agency that brokers a lot of these deals will say we had a good year. we sold more weapons. i don't think that is the way to measure it. it has to do with who you are selling to, how you are using them, what's the effect on security and human beings. we have to pay more attention to that. we have to be more transparent about when we deliver these weapons, how they are being used. for many of them there is information upfront about what is being offered but as it goes on to being used on the ground, there is less information from our government. we depend on investigative reporters, human rights investigators, for example, that found that u.s. weapons were used on a school bus, water

treatment plants. it should not be up to someone outside the government to find out the consequences of these arms deals. that should be the government's responsibility given that this represents the united states and our tax dollars. host: do you think there is any degree of sway considering the deaths of those humanitarian workers last week? guest: i think in this changed the political equation -- it has changed the political equation. there were aids workers and journalists as well. is this gets people's attention --if this gets people's

attention, i am all for that. host: when it comes to the arms transfers, what does that due to u.s. supplies and do we have enough for our own defense needs? guest: between yemen, ukraine, what has been heavy use of artillery shells, missiles and equipment and this applies to israel, it has been said that for certain items, the stock is running low. we don't know that for sure because certain levels are classified. the second thing to ask is are the transfers necessary. in the case of ukraine, what i would not like to see happen is the permanent expansion of our arms industry based on this specific example and the industry of some of the pentagon have been pushing for that.

down the road we will have excess capacity, excess spending. it would be harder to roll that back. this is a question that needs serious consideration. preferably with more information about where we stand as a pers to -- as opposed to a vague statement by the government without any real information. host: johnson from rhode island, democrats line. caller: i have two comments. the first is about the attack on the aid workers. three missiles hit three different trucks. that was purposeful. you only have to look back to the uss liberty where the israelis attacked the united states spy ship. there is a concerted effort to disrupt aid to gaza, no matter how they do it. the second issue is more problematic.

senators and congressmen receive $25,000 per year from israel. that political contribution would amount to $18,000. i am wondering if the guests would like to comment on the israeli political machine that is probably the second largest lobby in the united states next to aarp. guest: yes. the route of the aid workers was known to israeli military. the vehicles were marked. the case could be made that it was not a mistake. as for the political situation, foreign governments are not allowed to make contributions to u.s. politicians. they are allowed to do so under

a surrogate. israel's power has to do with political support in the united states from groups like aipac and also individuals. there is a strong lobby for israel but it is structured differently. like uae and saudi arabia would do things like employ former u.s. military officials to work for them after they leave the government. i think the two models are somewhat different. there is a level of political support for israel among the american public that does not exist for some of these other countries that are using these lobbying methods. host: the council for foreign relations has a chart that looks at aid to israel from 1946 to 2023. a good deal of it in military aid but also to egypt, afghanistan and south vietnam is topping the lists. talk about the other countries

that get military aid aside from israel and ukraine and what is surprising about those countries that we are giving that to. guest: the aid program, over the years the big recipients have been israel, egypt, turkey for a while. about 25 countries get some of that money. a vast majority goes to the middle east. israel, egypt and jordan to some extent. there are other programs that can transfer arms. those programs could be worth another $10 billion or more. those are much less transparent to the public. it varies. some of the countries who are problematic like saudi arabia have their own money to spend. others need u.s. aid.

egypt is a good example. other members have been trained to scale back that aid. the human rights records point out in many cases that the egyptian government takes position opposite of the united states. they are not even aligned with the u.s. on many issues. yes, it's a combination. the other question is how the weapons are being used. there is also more leverage in the sense that congress could reduce the aid money. it is a significant amount of money. the other idea is that this is not helping our economy because we are playing -- paying with our tax dollars. host: how does the united states compared to other countries when

it comes to transfers to either israel, ukraine or other areas of the world? guest: the best source for comparing these things is the stockholm place research institute. globally, the u.s. has about 40% of the market. france has about 10%. russia, around that. china, even less. israel is more than two thirds the other major supplier being germany. when saudi arabia was at the peak of its war in yemen, the u.s. and the u.k. were the primary suppliers. the u.s. is often the key supplier except in states where we do not have relations like syria or china. the u.s. sells weapons in a given year to 107 countries in a given year. that is more than half of the

u.n. member states. in my mind, this has become business as usual. it has to be looked at much more carefully in terms of how it affects our security and the security of the countries. it is this huge aspect of our foreign policy. it is almost taken for granted. host: i was going to ask you how optimistic are usr's changes to what you are currently seeing -- how optimistic are you as far as changes to what you are currently seeing. guest: although they did not win the day, there was a strong congressional opposition to arms to saudi arabia at the peak of the war there. in some cases, in apartheid south africa, there was a global embargo.

it was pushed to not just embargo on arms but all interactions. there have been times when it has happened. i think it requires a fair amount of understanding, pressure and a few champions. when they passed the act in the 70's, a senator from wisconsin was a key leader. he cared enough about it to shovel it through the process. leaders in congress felt the pressure. a president who also sees that we need to change course. i think it can be done. i would not want to give up on it because there is so much at stake. host: our guest's website is quincyin.org. host: this is