Expanding the Defense Industrial Base Sales Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/8649
Last Updated: September 13, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

ID: B001322

Follow the money

The bill

Expanding the Defense Industrial Base Sales Act

HR. 8649, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$126,974 raised

26 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 161-163 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported Unfavorably by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 23.

May 12, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterclass in legislative obfuscation, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt denizens of Congress. Let's dissect this putrid excuse for a bill, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The ostensible purpose of HR 8649 is to "amend the Arms Export Control Act" and expand the Defense Industrial Base Sales Act. How quaint. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to further enrich the defense industry by allowing foreign military financing for direct commercial contracts. Because what could possibly go wrong with giving more money to arms dealers?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill inserts a new section (23A) into the Arms Export Control Act, authorizing the use of foreign military financing for direct commercial contracts. This means that funds can now be used to finance defense articles and services sold directly by private companies, rather than just through government-to-government sales. Oh, and don't worry, the Secretary of State will "approve" these transactions, because we all know how rigorous their oversight is (cough, cough). The bill also requires implementing regulations within 180 days, which will undoubtedly be crafted with the utmost care to ensure maximum profit for defense contractors.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The real beneficiaries of this bill are the defense industry giants and their lobbyists, who will no doubt reap a windfall from these expanded financing opportunities. Foreign governments and international organizations will also get to join in on the fun, as they'll be eligible to receive this financing. And, of course, the American taxpayer will foot the bill, because who needs fiscal responsibility when there are wars to be fought and profits to be made?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster, a perfect storm of corruption, waste, and abuse. By allowing direct commercial contracts, we're essentially creating a Wild West of arms dealing, where accountability goes to die. The potential for graft, bribery, and other forms of malfeasance is staggering. And let's not forget the inevitable blowback when these arms end up in the wrong hands – but hey, who needs responsible foreign policy when there are defense industry profits to be made? The real disease here is the insatiable greed of the military-industrial complex, and this bill is just another symptom of that terminal illness.

In conclusion, HR 8649 is a masterclass in legislative cynicism, a brazen attempt to line the pockets of defense contractors while pretending to advance national security interests. It's a bad joke, really – but hey, at least the punchline will be profitable for someone.

Related Topics

Defense Spending & ProcurementFederal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$126,974
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$12,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$114,074

No PAC contributions found

1
THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
3 transactions
$8,600
2
KALISPEL TRIBAL ECONOMIC AUTHORITY
2 transactions
$3,300
3
YAKAMA NATION
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
JHASHI, VAJA
1 transaction
$13,200
2
PLATH, PETER
2 transactions
$13,200
3
SCHNAUBELT, CHRISTOPHER
2 transactions
$6,870
4
BENNETT, GREGG
1 transaction
$6,600
5
CONNORS, JOHN
1 transaction
$6,600
6
CONNORS, KATHY
1 transaction
$6,600
7
MERCK, MAGGIE
1 transaction
$6,600
8
ODERMAT, MARY
1 transaction
$6,600
9
PARKS, DAVE
1 transaction
$6,600
10
CHAUDHRY, ASIF
1 transaction
$6,600
11
MAHMOOD, ARSHAD
1 transaction
$6,600
12
SLIVKA, BENJAMIN
1 transaction
$5,829
13
JOHNSON, KEVIN
1 transaction
$5,000
14
ANDERSON, MARK
1 transaction
$3,435
15
BRIDGEWATER, JACK
1 transaction
$3,435
16
HERCHE, THOMAS
1 transaction
$3,435
17
RINDLAUB, SARAH
1 transaction
$3,435
18
WETZEL, SCOTT
1 transaction
$3,435

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17]

ID: L000599

Top Contributors

21

1
MURTAGH, COSSU, VENDITTI & CASTRO-BLANCO, LLP
OrganizationWHITE PLAINS, NY
$1,000
Feb 24, 2024
2
BATMASIAN, JAMES
INVESTMENTS LIMITED • OWNER
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 27, 2023
3
BATMASIAN, JAMES
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$6,600
Sep 29, 2023
4
AUSTIN, ROBERT
UNAKA CO., INC. • BUSINESSMAN
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,600
Jul 18, 2024
5
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 15, 2024
6
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
IndividualSURFSIDE, FL
$6,534
Feb 22, 2024
7
SCALA, MARY ELLEN
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPORT CHESTER, NY
$5,300
Aug 27, 2023
8
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
SELF • PRESIDENT
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 24, 2024
9
DEUTSCH, SHMULEY
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,900
Jun 25, 2024
10
PERLMUTTER, RAFUEL
GOLDEN TASTE • CEO
IndividualSPRING VALLEY, NY
$3,400
Jun 24, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 38 nodes and 50 connections

Total contributions: $50

Top Donors - Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

3 Orgs18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • +Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.95

    Section 2(a) authorizes foreign military financing to be used for procurement of defense articles, services, and design/construction services not sold by the U.S. Government, expanding market opportunities for defense contractors via direct commercial contracts.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Defense

Very Strong
Vector: 59%
Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 8649 directly expands the use of foreign military financing for direct commercial contracts, which aligns with Project 2025's Department of Defense objective to strengthen the defense industrial base and increase arms sales to allies through streamlined export processes."

Key themes:defense industrial base expansionforeign military financingarms export reformally supportnon-traditional defense contractor participation

— 128 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Constitution, Preamble, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 2. U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 3. U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 2, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 4. Established pursuant to S. 1605, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Public Law No. 117-81, 117th Congress, December 27, 2021, Division A, Title X, § 1004, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ81/ PLAW-117publ81.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 5. H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law No. 117-58, 117th Congress, November 15, 2021, Division G, Title IX, §§ 70901–70953, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 6. S. 2943, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law 114-328, 114th Congress, December 23, 2016, Division A, Title IX, § 901, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-130/STATUTE-130-Pg2000. pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 7. H.R. 3622, Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, Public Law No. 99-433, 99th Congress, October 1, 1986, https://www.congress.gov/99/statute/STATUTE-100/STATUTE-100-Pg992.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 8. U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Historical Sales Book, Fiscal Years 1950–2021, p. 7, https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/dsca_historical_sales_book_FY21.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 9. Paul K. Kerr, “Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL31675, updated June 10, 2022, p. 1, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/ RL31675.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 10. Keith Webster, “How to Reform America’s Military Sales Process,” The Hill Congress Blog, October 6, 2022, https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3675933-how-to-reform-americas-military-sales-process/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 11. See Thomas W. Spoehr, “The Administration and Congress Must Act Now to Counter the Worsening Military Recruiting Crisis, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5283, July 28, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2022-07/IB5283.pdf. 12. Ibid. 13. Ronald Reagan Institute, “Reagan National Defense Survey,” conducted November 2021, p. 4, https://www. reaganfoundation.org/media/358085/rndf_survey_booklet.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 14. See Paul J. Larkin, “Protecting the Nation by Employing Military Spouses,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, June 6, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/protecting-the-nation-employing- military-spouses. 15. See Jude Schwalbach, “Military Families Deserve Flexible Education Options,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, April 14, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/military-families-deserve- flexible-education-options. 16. See Chapter 7, “The Intelligence Community,” infra. 17. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); the National Security Agency (NSA); the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA); the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO); and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the military services: U.S. Air Force Intelligence, U.S. Navy Intelligence, U.S. Army Intelligence, and U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, which also receive guidance and oversight from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI). 18. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 19. The Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the U.S. Coast Guard; the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of National Security Intelligence; the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; and the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

Department of Defense

Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 134-136AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 8649 expands export opportunities by allowing foreign military financing for direct commercial contracts, which directly supports Project 2025's goals of emphasizing exportability, incentivizing export-friendly planning, minimizing barriers to collaboration, and reforming the FMS contracting process."

Key themes:exportabilitydefense industrial base expansionforeign military financingstreamlined procurementnon-traditional contractor participation

— 101 — Department of Defense 1. Ensure that senior U.S. military leadership emphasizes exportability in the initial development of defense systems that are both available and interoperable with our partners and allies. 2. Create a funding mechanism to incentivize exportability in initial planning, which can be recouped after future FMS transactions. l End informal congressional notification. Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.9 1. End the tiered review process to eliminate at least 20 days from the FMS process. 2. Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification. l Minimize barriers to collaboration. The high cost of developing advanced defense platforms requires the United States to collaborate with key allies to minimize waste, complement strengths, and supplement our defense industrial base to create a system that is greater than that of the United States alone. 1. Enhance defense industrial base planning with partners to allow them to focus on niche areas where there are cost advantages for the United States. 2. Decrease International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to facilitate trade with such allies as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. 3. Create opportunities to improve the health of the defense supply chain with added opportunities for partners and allies to contribute. l Reform the FMS contracting process. The contracting timeline for the FMS process is shockingly slow. On average, the DOD contracting timeline takes approximately 18 months because of slow bureaucratic processes and chronic understaffing.10

Department of Defense

Strong
Vector: 61%
Pages: 128-130AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 8649 aligns strongly with Project 2025's goal of strengthening the defense industrial base by expanding opportunities for U.S. defense companies to export through foreign military financing, which supports modernization and industrial capacity. The bill's focus on enabling direct commercial contracts and encouraging non-traditional defense company participation directly supports Project 2025's emphasis on revitalizing the defense industrial base and improving acquisition flexibility."

Key themes:defense industrial baseacquisition reformforeign military financingnon-traditional contractorsmodernization

— 95 — Department of Defense 1. Expand and modernize the U.S. nuclear force so that it has the size, sophistication, and tailoring to deter Russia and China simultaneously. 2. Develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring— including new capabilities at the theater level—to ensure that there is no circumstance in which America is exposed to serious nuclear coercion. l Increase allied counterterrorist burden-sharing. Transnational terrorism remains a threat to Americans even as we pivot toward Asia. 1. Sustain the military forces needed to deter, prevent, and combat terrorism, but at a sustainable cost in concert with other elements of national power and partner efforts. 2. Prioritize enhancing the capability of allies and partners to take the lead in combating terrorism in their regions. DOD ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT (A&S) The DOD’s ability to acquire and field new and existing technologies is essential to the ability of America’s military personnel to fight and win our nation’s wars. To succeed in this endeavor, we must optimize the systems and personnel that the department uses, but the inflexible bureaucratic structure and risk-adverse culture that have developed over the decades make it difficult to provide the tools that warfighters need at the speed of relevance. The number one problem is the DOD budgeting process (instituted in 1961) that requires acquisition spending to be locked years in advance. Because tech- nologies change so rapidly and requirements can change overnight, this creates situations in which military personnel not only go to war with outdated technol- ogy, but also may be fighting with equipment that is less capable than that of their competitors. America owes its military many things, and the most important is the resources they need to survive on the battlefield and carry out the tasks we ask of them. Needed Reforms l Reform the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process. 1. Enhance funding and authority for DOD mission-focused innovation organizations and away from program-specific stovepipes that, planned for and designed two or three years earlier, may no longer be — 96 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise relevant. This allows the acquisition community to focus on portfolio management and move money around more easily instead of being locked into inflexible, multiyear procurement cycles. 2. The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform4 and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people. The commission’s final report is due on September 1, 2023. 3. Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional PPBE process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs. 4. Require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and all service secretaries to conduct “Night Court” and use existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work. Require the Under Secretaries and service secretaries to brief the Secretary annually on the results. 5. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to research and report on the acquisition processes used by America’s adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline. l Strengthen America’s defense industrial base. 1. Replenish and maintain U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine. This will strengthen the defense industry supply chain and ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. 2. Collaborate with industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact and implement to incentivize industry to help America’s military innovate and field needed capabilities.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills