Overview
Title
To amend the Arms Export Control Act to increase the dollar amount thresholds under sections 3 and 36 of that Act relating to proposed transfers or sales of defense articles or services under that Act, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The TIGER Act wants to change a law about selling military equipment to other countries by raising how much money can be involved without needing extra special permission. It's like saying you can buy a bigger toy without asking your parents each time, but some people worry this could mean wasting money or making decisions without everyone knowing what's going on.
Summary AI
H.R. 6609, known as the "TIGER Act," aims to amend the Arms Export Control Act to raise the thresholds for dollar amounts involved in proposed transfers or sales of defense items and services by increasing specific monetary limits outlined in sections 3 and 36 of the Act. It also introduces enhanced review requirements for certain large transfers or sales, requiring consultation with federal agencies and certification that delivery times meet U.S. foreign policy interests. The bill further facilitates transfers of defense funds between the Department of Defense and the Secretary of State to ensure the efficient function of the Special Defense Acquisition Fund.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 6609, introduced in the 118th Congress, aims to amend the Arms Export Control Act by increasing the financial thresholds for proposed transfers or sales of defense articles and services. By raising these thresholds, the bill intends to streamline arms transfers and sales, presumably to enhance readiness by reducing bureaucratic delays. It also seeks to establish enhanced review requirements for large-scale arms deals and make changes to the Special Defense Acquisition Fund to facilitate defense equipment acquisition.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several key issues arise from the proposed legislation:
Typographical Errors: The bill contains multiple instances of an erroneous dollar figure, "$50,000,0000", which appears to be a typographical error. Clarity in legal documents is paramount, and such errors can lead to confusion or misinterpretation.
Increased Dollar Amount Thresholds: Raising the financial thresholds for oversight of arms transactions could potentially result in less stringent monitoring of smaller yet significant arms deals. This might lead to concerns about unchecked military spending or inadequately scrutinized arms transactions.
Vague Review Criteria: The bill's enhanced review requirements for certain large transactions include criteria that are subjective and open-ended, particularly those requiring alignment with U.S. foreign policy interests, which are not clearly defined. This lack of precision could lead to arbitrary decision-making.
Transparency and Oversight: Allowing the Secretary of State to submit transaction progress reports in classified form may limit public and congressional oversight, potentially obscuring the impact and rationale for certain arms deals.
Fund Transfer Provisions: The amendment allowing fund transfers from the Department of Defense to the Department of State without reprogramming requirements might reduce financial oversight. Additionally, the short notification period for such transfers could hinder thorough congressional review.
Potential Impact on the Public
Broadly speaking, this legislation could affect the public by altering how defense resources are allocated and managed, which, in turn, influences national security and foreign policy. While increased efficiency in arms sales could enhance defense readiness, the potential for diminished oversight raises concerns about accountability, particularly in the use of taxpayer funds for military sales abroad.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Defense Industry: The bill could benefit defense contractors and manufacturers by simplifying administrative processes and potentially expediting sales. This can lead to increased revenues and industry growth.
Government Agencies: Agencies like the Department of State and Department of Defense may gain flexibility and efficiency in handling arms transactions. However, the lack of stringent oversight mechanisms could lead to interdepartmental accountability issues.
Congress and Oversight Bodies: The bill poses challenges for congressional oversight due to its provisions for classified reporting and limited notification periods for fund transfers. This may reduce Congress's ability to thoroughly evaluate and control defense-related expenditures.
Taxpayers and Public Interest Groups: There may be concerns about the potential for inefficient spending and lack of accountability in military sales. Public confidence in government management of defense resources could be affected, especially if fiscal mismanagement occurs.
In summary, while H.R. 6609 aims to modernize and streamline arms export procedures, it raises significant concerns about oversight and accountability that require careful consideration to ensure responsible management of defense-related activities.
Financial Assessment
The proposed legislation, known as the "TIGER Act," aims to amend the Arms Export Control Act by increasing financial thresholds applicable to defense-related transactions. These changes have significant implications for how financial oversight and accountability are managed in the realm of military sales and transfers.
Increase in Dollar Amount Thresholds
The bill proposes to raise existing dollar amount thresholds in sections 3 and 36 of the Arms Export Control Act. Specifically, the adjustments include changing instances of $14,000,000 to $23,000,000, $50,000,000 to $83,000,000, $200,000,000 to $332,000,000, $25,000,000 to $42,000,000, $100,000,000 to $166,000,000, and $300,000,000 to $500,000,000. However, there is a noted typographical error in the proposed text where $50,000,0000 (with an extra '0') appears multiple times, necessitating correction to $50,000,000. These increases aim to modernize and adjust the regulatory thresholds in response to changing defense and economic factors.
Implications of Increased Thresholds
The proposed increases in these thresholds could raise concerns regarding oversight and financial management. By setting higher limits before Congressional review is necessary, there is a potential risk of insufficient scrutiny over large defense sales and transfers. While the intent may be to streamline processes, it could inadvertently lead to less oversight, increasing the possibility of wasteful spending or unintended consequences in foreign policy execution.
Enhanced Review Requirements
The bill introduces enhanced review requirements for defense transfers or sales that exceed a threshold set at three times the dollar amount specified in the amended thresholds. The Secretary of State, collaborating with the Secretary of Defense, must ensure that such transactions align with U.S. foreign policy interests. However, the provision allowing reports to be submitted in classified form raises transparency concerns. This lack of visibility may result in limited oversight and public awareness of significant fiscal and policy-related transfers, reducing the capacity for accountability.
Another provision enables the Secretary of State to waive certain requirements under specific circumstances, without a detailed framework for these conditional waivers. This could lead to arbitrary decisions and power concentration without adequate checks, potentially undermining the bill’s intent for responsible financial management.
Transfer of Defense Funds
Section 4 of the bill allows the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds to the Secretary of State without subjecting these transfers to a reprogramming requirement, which usually ensures detailed scrutiny. Additionally, the mandate for only a 15-day notification period before such transfers can occur might not provide ample time for Congressional committees to conduct thorough oversight. These provisions might lead to less comprehensive financial oversight, making it crucial to carefully balance efficiency with accountability.
In summary, while the TIGER Act's financial provisions intend to adapt to the contemporary context of defense transactions, they introduce potential risks associated with oversight, accountability, and fiscal management. It is important for stakeholders to carefully consider these implications to ensure both efficiency and responsible use of defense funds.
Issues
The text in Section 2 contains repeated instances of '$50,000,0000' with an extra '0', which is likely a typographical error and should be corrected to '$50,000,000'. This error could lead to confusion and misinterpretation of the proposed changes in dollar amount thresholds.
The increases in dollar amount thresholds for proposed transfers or sales of defense articles under Section 2 of the Arms Export Control Act may raise concerns about potential wasteful spending or the possibility of insufficient oversight. Without appropriate checks and balances, these higher thresholds could lead to unmonitored military sales.
The provision in Section 3 that allows the report on the progress of the transfer or sale to be submitted in classified form may impede transparency and public oversight, potentially limiting the ability of Congress and the public to assess the implications of such transfers.
The requirement in Section 3 for the delivery time of defense articles or services to 'meet United States foreign policy interests' is vague and subjective, lacking clear criteria or definition, which could lead to arbitrary enforcement.
The clause in Section 3 allowing the Secretary of State to waive the use of drawdown authority and special authorities without specified conditions or limitations could lead to arbitrary or unchecked power.
The amendment in Section 4 authorizing the transfer of funds from the Department of Defense to the Department of State without any reprogramming requirement could potentially lead to a lack of congressional oversight or checks and balances over such transfers, raising concerns over interdepartmental financial management practices.
The requirement in Section 4 for the Secretary of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees only 15 days prior to making transfers might be considered a short notice period, potentially limiting comprehensive oversight and fiscal accountability.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides the short title of the legislation, stating that it can be called the “Foreign Military Sales Technical, Industrial, and Governmental Engagement for Readiness Act” or simply the “TIGER Act.”
2. Increase in dollar amount thresholds under sections 3 and 36 of the Arms Export Control Act relating to proposed transfers or sales of defense articles or services under that Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Arms Export Control Act by increasing the dollar amount thresholds for proposed transfers or sales of defense articles or services. Various sections of the Act now reflect higher financial thresholds, such as increasing some amounts from $14 million to $23 million and from $50 million to $83 million.
Money References
- SEC. 2. Increase in dollar amount thresholds under sections 3 and 36 of the Arms Export Control Act relating to proposed transfers or sales of defense articles or services under that Act.
- The Arms Export Control Act is amended— (1) in section 3(d) (22 U.S.C. 2753(d))— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) by striking “$14,000,000” and inserting “$23,000,000”; and (ii) by striking “$50,000,0000” and inserting “$83,0000,000”; and (B) in paragraph (3)(A)— (i) by striking “$14,000,000” and inserting “$23,000,000”; and (ii) by striking “$50,000,0000” and inserting “$83,0000,000”; (2) in section 36(b) (22 U.S.C. 2776(b))— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) by striking “$50,000,0000” and inserting “$83,0000,000”; (ii) by striking “$200,000,000” and inserting “$332,000,000”; and (iii) by striking “$14,000,000” and inserting “$23,000,000”; (B) in paragraph (5)(C)— (i) by striking “$14,000,000” and inserting “$23,000,000”; (ii) by striking “$50,000,0000” and inserting “$83,0000,000”; and (iii) by striking “$200,000,000” and inserting “$332,000,000”; and (C) in paragraph (6)— (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$42,000,000”; (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking “$100,000,0000” and inserting “$166,000,000”; and (iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking “$300,000,000” and inserting “$500,000,000”; and (3) in section 36(c) (22 U.S.C. 2776(c))— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) by striking “$14,000,000” and inserting “$23,000,000”; and (ii) by striking “$50,000,0000” and inserting “$83,0000,000”; and (B) in paragraph (5)— (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$42,000,000”; and (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking “$100,000,0000” and inserting “$166,000,000”. ---
3. Enhanced review requirements of certain proposed transfers or sales Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines new rules for reviewing certain arms sales or transfers that are three times over a specific monetary threshold. It requires the Secretary of State to work with other officials to review the sale, report to Congress, and ensure the sale aligns with U.S. foreign policy interests. If the arms are not delivered within three years, authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act may be used to complete the sale, unless the Secretary of State provides Congress with a reason to waive this requirement.
Money References
- — “(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a proposed transfer or sale of defense articles or services under this Act that exceeds the amount that is not less than three times the applicable dollar amount threshold specified in section 3(d) or subsection (b) or (c) of this section, the Secretary of State shall— “(A) consult with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other Federal agencies as appropriate, to— “(i) review such proposed transfer or sale; and “(ii) submit to Congress a report on the progress of the transfer or sale, and such report may submitted in classified form; and “(B) certify to Congress that the anticipated delivery time of defense articles or services under such proposed transfer or sale meets United States foreign policy interests, or if the Secretary is unable to make such certification, the reasons therefor.
4. Special Defense Acquisition Fund Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 51 of the Arms Export Control Act allows the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds to the Secretary of State to support the Special Defense Acquisition Fund, requiring notification to Congress at least 15 days before the transfer and exempting it from certain reprogramming rules.