The State‑Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 19 voted 13‑4 to report HB256, which would establish a committee to study the federal government’s response to the June 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, as inexpedient to legislate.

Representative Belcher moved the ITL motion and Representative Gagne seconded it. Belcher said he was moved by testimony from survivors and expressed frustration at how some veterans were treated in prior hearings, but argued the state legislature lacks the investigative capacity and jurisdiction to conduct a conclusive review: “I seriously doubt that we have that kind of of investigative capacity,” he said, and urged a resolution instead to press federal authorities to declassify files and reopen inquiries.

Supporters of a study committee, including several committee members and some witnesses who previously testified, said survivors had traveled long distances and that many were elderly or had since died. Representative Manion and others argued the men deserved an official venue to present testimony in public committee proceedings. Representative Manion said he drafted a house resolution but feared it might not force federal action, and said a study committee could provide a formal record.

Representative Gagne, a naval veteran who described himself as moved by witness testimony, said the men wanted answers and “maybe give to some survivors and their their children some closure as to what really happened there.” Representative Foss said one of the veterans told the committee he wanted an apology.

Opponents reiterated jurisdictional and practical limits. Representative Lloyd said the legislature lacks access to classified records and security clearances needed to investigate. Several members favored a resolution urging the federal government to reopen records and to press for declassification rather than creating a state study commission that could take years and might not yield additional information.

The committee approved the ITL motion 13‑4, with the majority citing the limitations of state authority, the likely length and cost of a formal commission and the availability of alternative measures (for example, nonbinding resolutions) to press the federal government to act.