In the context of whether this would just be a symbolic act, it depends on how you frame it. I would suggest that it shouldn't be. It should include reporting requirements. How is the money being used? What is the bureaucracy doing to up its game? How are they tightening the net?
Now, some of that may be difficult to do in open committee, but there are other ways of getting that information or at least introducing some accountability in terms of which additional resources have been put to deal with this issue. I think it also makes it clear that this should be a priority for our intelligence services.
Your second question was about the conscripts. The argument that some made—it was based largely on a somewhat dated CIA report—was that many, if not the majority, of the members of the IRGC were unwitting conscripts. More recent evidence suggests that is not the case. Those who join it do so.
The indoctrination element is hugely important. You may be an unwitting conscript, but once you've gone through the indoctrination program, you're a threat, particularly if you're an IRGC operative. That would be my point there.
It's not just people sitting at desks and passing religious notes across the table. This is an organization that does have operatives. Not all of them are here. A lot of what the IRGC does is maintain internal order and control in Iran.