Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. BROWNLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. BROWNLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 20, which would place a blanket statutory ban on any DOD research, development, procurement, or promotion when it comes to cultivated cell-based meat.

Let's be clear. This isn't about whether the Pentagon is going to serve cultivated meat tomorrow. It is about whether we let our military continue doing what it has always done best, and that is preparing for the future.

Readiness has always been America's edge. Our military leads the world because we don't close doors. We open them. We evaluate every tool, every technology, and every option that might keep our servicemembers better supplied and better prepared for future missions. This amendment does just the opposite. It ties our hands. It says: Don't even consider it.

Meanwhile, China has already made cultivated meat a national priority in its 5-year plan. They are scaling up production, while countries like Singapore, Israel, Australia, and the U.K. are moving forward, as well.

If cultivated meat helps deliver cheaper, scaleable protein solutions worldwide, do we really want China setting the standards, dominating the intellectual property, and reaping the jobs this burgeoning industry creates?

Mr. Chair, I have spoken directly with senior DOD officials who have shared with me the potential benefits cultivated meat could bring to readiness. This includes from operating in harsh bases to sustaining missions where supply lines are contested or disrupted.

Keeping the option open for DOD research and evaluation ensures we remain competitive and ensures U.S. leadership in the broader protein biotech space that underpins global supply chains.

Voting ``no'' on this amendment preserves the military's discretion-- let me say that again--preserves the military's discretion to explore technology that could strengthen readiness, create U.S. jobs, and help maintain our competitive edge.

This ban doesn't save money, and it doesn't improve readiness. All it does is close off technology others are racing to develop while handing China a free lane in a strategic biotech domain.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment to ensure DOD can test, validate, or reject technology on the merits, not because of shortsighted, anti-science ideology.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. BROWNLEY. Mr. Chair, I would just say that, yes, I want to be competitive with China's military and their readiness first and foremost.

Second, our DOD officials are talking about the future. They are not talking about today. They are talking about preparedness for the future.

Mr. Chair, if you want a ribeye steak, cultivated meats can create that, and I assure you it will be delicious. They will love it, and they will not know the difference. Our military will not know the difference.

Mr. Chair, if we take this even out of the military, this is about investing in a new industry in our country that both Democrats and Republicans support because it is an opportunity for us to move and lead this, as opposed to China, Singapore, Israel, or Australia, which are already leading in this.

We want to be competitive in the global marketplace. We want our military to be ready.

This is about the future. This is about research. This is about science saying it is either good or bad, but to move forward with the research so that we know what our options are for the future for our military, which might be deployed to an offshore island somewhere, where there is no access to food whatsoever except for what they can develop.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. BROWNLEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source