H.R. 3838- Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026; H.R. 3486- Stop Illegal Entry Act of 2025

Committee on Rules

2025-09-08

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

The Rules Committee convened to consider H.R. 3838, the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2026, which aims to strengthen national defense, improve military procurement, and enhance the quality of life for service members. The meeting featured discussions on the bill's bipartisan support, potential challenges from partisan amendments, and significant concerns regarding presidential authority and military conduct.

Themes

National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 3838) and Procurement Reform

The NDAA, also known as the SPEED Act, is designed to ensure the US armed forces remain the best equipped globally and deter adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran. [ 00:11:43-00:12:25 ] A primary focus of the bill is reforming the defense acquisition process, which is currently criticized for being too slow, costly, and leading to outdated solutions. The SPEED Act aims to streamline this process by eliminating bureaucratic burdens, accelerating the delivery of capabilities, and encouraging innovation from a broader range of companies by focusing on desired outcomes rather than overly detailed requirements. Additionally, the legislation continues efforts to improve the quality of life for service members and their families, including a 3.8% pay raise and substantial investments in housing and facilities.

Partisan and Bipartisan Dynamics

The committee expressed a desire for continued bipartisanship, building on the bill's strong bipartisan passage out of the Armed Services Committee with a 56-2 or 57-2 vote. However, Ranking Member McGovern voiced concerns that the NDAA, like in previous years, might be loaded with "culture war garbage" amendments during the House floor consideration, undermining its core purpose of national defense. Chairman Rogers attributed the initial bipartisan success to a shared focus on the needs of the warfighter and national security. [ 00:27:07-00:27:16 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Several members highlighted the risk that partisan amendments could jeopardize the bill's broad support.

Concerns Regarding Presidential Authority and Military Use

Significant concerns were raised about presidential authority and the military's role. Mr. McGovern criticized the Pentagon's financial accountability, citing its inability to pass an audit and wasteful spending. Both Mr. McGovern and Adam Smith expressed alarm at President Trump's rhetoric and actions, including threats to use the military against American cities and its deployment for domestic law enforcement and border security, which they argued diverts resources from core defense missions. The unilateral military strike in the Caribbean against alleged drug traffickers, without clear congressional notification or justification, was also questioned as a dangerous and potentially illegal use of force. Concerns were also voiced regarding the firing of senior military officers for perceived disloyalty rather than performance, which could lead to a loss of talent and a chilling effect on military leadership.

Specific Policy Amendments and Debates

The discussion also covered several specific amendments and policy points. Adam Smith reiterated strong support for Ukraine with $400 million in USAI and for the Baltic Defense Initiative, opposing any cuts by the Trump administration. Mr. Wilson proposed repealing the Caesar Act sanctions on Syria, arguing they hinder economic recovery in the region following the collapse of the Assad regime. Mr. Fine presented an amendment for a grant to fund joint US-Israeli research on PTSD. Mr. Onder advocated for an amendment to protect the Department of Defense's ability to implement an executive order aimed at limiting labor union influence in federal agencies. Mr. Griffith discussed an amendment to protect the constitutional rights of US citizens or "persons" from indefinite detention. [ 00:45:19-00:46:03 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Mr. Roy expressed a desire to include amendments to terminate outdated Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs). [ 00:48:06-00:48:09 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting's tone was largely serious and deliberative, characterized by a fundamental commitment to national security and defense, but also marked by significant tension. While there was clear bipartisan agreement on the core NDAA bill as it emerged from committee [ 00:12:34 ] , strong partisan disagreements surfaced regarding broader political issues, executive actions, and the potential for "culture war" amendments to derail the legislative process. Speakers expressed candid and sometimes sharp criticisms of presidential conduct and military spending, highlighting a blend of shared purpose and deep ideological divides.

Participants

Transcript

Good afternoon.  Committee will come to order.  Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time.  Today, the Rules Committee is convening to consider a single measure, H.R.  3838, the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2026.   You guys couldn't come up with a shorter name for it?  We'll certainly hear a lot of robust discussion on the legislations before us today, so I'll keep my opening comments brief.  Congress's first duty is to provide for the common defense of the nation.  It's a constitutional mandate we're charged with upholding.  The NDAA undergirds America's national defense policy   It works to ensure that America's armed forces remain the best equipped and prepared in the entire world.  It has always been a bipartisan effort, one that helps the men and women who defend our nation achieve their mission, whether by land, sea, or air.  The FY26 NDAA furthers the strong commitments of Congress and President Trump   to build a ready, capable, and lethal fighting force that will effectively deter our nation's adversaries.  It codifies all or parts of 15 separate executive orders issued by President Trump that relate to fortifying our nation's national security and defense postures.  Further, this legislation yields $20 billion in savings   including $15 billion from reforms spearheaded by DOGE, works to improve the quality of life for the nation's service members with a 3.8% pay raise and improved benefits for military families, cuts bureaucratic red tape that threatens our nation's competitive advantage on the world stage, and equips the nation's warfighters with the capabilities they need
in the most cost-effective manner possible.  The FY26 NDAA also makes commitments to deter aggression from rogue regimes such as China, Russia, Iran, and foreign terrorist organizations that pose a serious threat to America's national security and our way of life.  This legislation would not be possible   without the bipartisan collaborative efforts of the members and staff of the Armed Services Committee.  As this process now moves to the Rules Committee and soon to the floor for full consideration, I expect the same level of bipartisanship and collaboration will be present.  With many Republicans and Democrats coming to testify here today, we'll be presented with a wide range of ideas that will receive fair consideration.   With that, I look forward to today's discussion and I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments that he wishes to make.
Well, thank you, Madam Chair.  So before us this week is the National Defense Authorization Act.  Last year, Republicans turned what what's supposed to be a national security funding bill into a right wing wish list.  They loaded it up with attacks on reproductive rights.  They targeted LGBTQ service members.   They went after diversity programs in the military.  It wasn't about defense.  It wasn't about protecting this country.  It was all about playing politics with our national defense.  And I fear it will be the exact same thing this year.  The same extremist playbook.  Pass it out of committee with bipartisan support, then blow it up on the House floor with a pile of culture war garbage that has nothing to do with keeping America safe.  So let's be clear.  This isn't about national defense.  It's about political theater.   It's about turning the Department of Defense, excuse me, the Department of War, since Donald Trump apparently changed the name, into a campaign prop.  Kind of interesting that the president who says he wants a Nobel Prize, Nobel Peace Prize, is fantasizing about war.  But I guess that makes sense coming from the guy who's never actually been in a war because he had bone spurs.  And just this weekend, he posted, and I quote, Chicago about to find out why it's called the Department of War.  Let that sink in.   The sitting president threatening to use the U.S.  military to wage war on an American city against American citizens.  That's not leadership.  That's nuts.  Imagine if President Obama tweeted out that he was going to war with Republican-led cities.  You guys would be having a meltdown.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up