Brian Schatz
Senator for Hawaii · Democratic · United States
“And the reason I voted no yesterday is because I am not voting for a defense bill until this war is over, and I am not voting for a defense bill until we get to debate the most important thing happening in terms of our national defense. We are at war, and we are being prevented from even overseeing it.”
“And the reason I voted no yesterday is because I am not voting for a defense bill until this war is over, and I am not voting for a defense bill until we get to debate the most important thing happening in terms of our national defense. We are at war, and we are being prevented from even overseeing it.”
“And the criticism of the Obama agreement--and I was on the floor defending it--was that it didn't last long enough--not that it wasn't any good, but that it didn't last in perpetuity; that it was only good for 10 years. Now we have got nothing. Now we have got nothing.”
“To that point, having repeatedly ruled out allowing any uranium enrichment and demanding that Iran turn over its uranium stockpile, Trump has changed his tune on both: ``It is a little hard''--``it is a little hard''--``when other people have it, other adjoining states have it, and you're not letting them have it for purposes of electrici…”
“We went to war to change the regime. Not only not a success, but a terrible failure. We have got a younger and more radical and entrenched Ayatollah in the regime of Iran. And now they know they can withstand our best hit.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S4098-S4100] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Iran Mr. SCHATZ. Mr.”
The complete record
Every one of 410 lines we hold for Brian Schatz, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“Senate and a grateful nation, I thank Sergeant Major Marshall, his wife Jillian, son Miles, and their entire family for the commitment, sacrifices, and contributions they have made throughout his honorable military service. Congratulations on completing an exceptional and successful career. ____________________”
“It is no surprise that he has been honored with numerous military awards and decorations including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, several Army Meritorious Service Medals, the Combat Action Badge, and the Signal Corps Bronze Order of Mercury, among others. His exemplary service and steadfast leadership have earned him the respect and admiration of colleagues and superiors alike. Any tribute to Sergeant Major Marshall would be incomplete without acknowledging the unwavering support of his wife Jillian and the joy brought by their son Miles. Jillian has stood by Sergeant Major Marshall at every step of his journey, providing love, care, and wisdom. On behalf of the U.S.”
“military, while also advising our team on defense and veterans' issues. His dedication and professionalism were evident in every task he undertook. For the past 3 years, he has served in the Army's Senate liaison office, where he has played a crucial role in answering congressional requests for information, staffing engagements between Army senior leaders and Members of Congress, and leading congressional delegations abroad to conduct defense oversight. Sergeant Major Marshall's lengthy and diverse career was filled with experiences that have enriched him both as a soldier and a person.”
“Enlisting as a combat documentation production specialist in 2006, Sergeant Major Marshall began his service as a combat photographer at 55th Signal Company (Combat Camera) and completed one combat deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He held various tactical and operational positions, including roles at American Forces Network Livorno, the Army Entertainment Detachment, the Cyber Center of Excellence Noncommissioned Officer Academy Detachment, the Defense POW/ MIA Accounting Agency, and 9th Psychological Operations Group (Airborne). Sergeant Major Marshall was competitively selected to serve as an Army congressional fellow for the fiscal year 2023 and was assigned to my office. During his fellowship, he gained valuable insights into the workings of Congress and its relationship with the U.S.”
“Throughout his career, Sergeant Major Marshall has personified the highest standards of Army professionalism and the soldierly values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage to the Army and our Nation. Many of us on Capitol Hill have enjoyed the opportunity to work with Sergeant Major Marshall and it is my privilege to recognize his achievements. Sergeant Major Marshall is a distinguished leader whose career in the U.S. Army has been marked by unwavering dedication and exceptional service. Born and raised in St. Louis, MO, Sergeant Major Marshall embarked on his military journey with a commitment to excellence that would define his decades-long career.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4104] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] TRIBUTE TO SERGEANT MAJOR DAVID MARSHALL Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional noncommissioned officer in the U.S. Army, SGM David J. Marshall, who currently serves as the deputy chief for the Army's Senate Liaison Division and will retire from Active Duty after 20 distinguished years of active Federal service at the end of this year.”
“The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.”
“And the reason I voted no yesterday is because I am not voting for a defense bill until this war is over, and I am not voting for a defense bill until we get to debate the most important thing happening in terms of our national defense. We are at war, and we are being prevented from even overseeing it. We are just asked to fork over tens and tens of billions of dollars without so much as weighing in on this is an authorization of the use of military force. The President, as the Commander in Chief of our military, may engage kinetically with another country. We have decided that. We have been elected. We have decided that. None of that happened. Why? Because they don't have the votes for that. Why do they not have the votes for that? Because this war is stupid, and the public knows it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.”
“If you want to claim that the ICBM array that the IRGC had was a danger to the United States, come down, at least testify before the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, and then at least have a debate on the damn floor of the U.S. Senate. And it is worse than that because to the extent that we have had any votes at all, we actually have prevailed. A majority of Members of this body have said that this war should come to a conclusion. And so my Republican colleagues are saying: Hey, why don't we pass the Defense authorization? After all, it is a big bipartisan bill, and we always do it. That is true. We always do it. And I think 13 out of 14 years or 12 out of 13 years, I voted for the National Defense Authorization Act.”
“It is a war, but we have 60 days.'' ``Oh, the war is off because the MOU for the cease-fire is now being implemented.'' And now the war is back on, and they are acting as if, as a legal matter, this new kinetic engagement is a second and separate war and the clock starts again and you have got 60 days again to delay Congress from weighing in. And this is not some procedural nicety. This isn't me as a politician, like, protecting my prerogatives. The reason this matters is the people's representatives in the Congress have to vote before we go to war. And there are some narrow exceptions. If we are in danger, you don't want to have to, like, assemble Congress if we are in immediate danger. Fine. We are not in immediate danger. We were never in immediate danger.”
“There was no buildup; there was no explaining; and most importantly for us as U.S. Senators, there was no vote on the authorization of the use of military force. Now, they are going to say that under the War Powers Resolution, they have this ability to basically take military action if there is an imminent threat to the safety of the United States of America. And then they would have 60 days, and it is kind of complicated exactly how it works. But what they have said now is that ``No, this isn't a war.'' That is No. 1. ``Oh, yeah. Sorry.”
“Freedom of navigation is a basic principle that we enforce around the world, but we don't have to bomb anybody to get it. And so now the endgame is: Let's try to get the strait open and pretend that the reasons that we went to war were not the reasons that we went to war. And I think what is the most disgusting about all of this--you know, someone used to say: Armies don't go to war. Countries go to war. Now, why does that matter? You cannot go to war without the support of the American public. You cannot go to war without explaining to the American public what you are up to. And what happened many months ago was Donald Trump woke up one morning and said: I guess we are taking kinetic action against Iran. And people are finding: OK, sorry, what? What exactly are we doing and why?”
“We went to war to eliminate their nuclear program; and not only did we not do that, but Donald Trump himself is kind of characterizing it like it is no big deal. And so now we are negotiating not for any of the reasons that were stated to put our servicemembers in harm's way and to spend tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer funding for this war and to raise the price of gasoline by a buck, buck fifty a gallon, to raise the price of fertilizer and plastics and natural gas and electronics--to raise the price of almost everything. We met none of our objectives, and now our objective is just to keep sea lanes open. Sea lanes were open. Sea lanes are always open. That is not a foreign policy objective of the United States of America in the sense that we have to work really hard to do it.”
“So all of the stated objectives of this war have not been met. Finally, how are they doing on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and free? Well, it is closed again, and Trump and Iran are back and forth going at it over who gets control and who gets to charge tolls. To be clear, this was never a problem prewar. And so now the objective in ending this war is just to get to the status quo before the war. We went to war to eliminate their ballistic missile capability--not on the nuclear side. Not a success. We went to war to change the regime. Not only not a success, but a terrible failure. We have got a younger and more radical and entrenched Ayatollah in the regime of Iran. And now they know they can withstand our best hit.”
“obliterated. He said that on February 28. But according to press reports, U.S. intelligence Agencies estimated that roughly 70 percent of Iran's pre- war missile stockpile was still intact as of May. And just this week, Iran started firing missiles again at tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and at military bases across the Middle East, demonstrating both its leverage and its ability to continue fighting. OK. Well, what about the goal of cutting off Iran's funding for proxy groups? The administration has mostly stopped talking about it, and there was no mention of Iran's support for Hezbollah or other groups in the MOU. In fact, the MOU allowed Iran to sell its oil freely, even though Trump's own State Department told Congress that oil exports are a primary revenue source for Iran's financing of proxies.”
“To that point, having repeatedly ruled out allowing any uranium enrichment and demanding that Iran turn over its uranium stockpile, Trump has changed his tune on both: ``It is a little hard''--``it is a little hard''--``when other people have it, other adjoining states have it, and you're not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that.'' This is Trump on uranium enrichment. On acquiring stockpiles, he said: You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff. Why even bother? And that is the story of this war in a nutshell. Trump sets before us an impossible goal. And when it fails, he then moves the goalposts or backs down completely. The next goal, obliterating Iran's missiles: We're going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally . . .”
“Now, it is true that heavy strikes last summer and the first phase of the war this spring have set back Iran's nuclear program. It is also true that in the memorandum of understanding--that has since fallen apart--Iran agreed to the same thing it agreed to under the JCPOA. Under the Obama nuclear agreement, we got all of this without having to go to war. And the criticism of the Obama agreement--and I was on the floor defending it--was that it didn't last long enough--not that it wasn't any good, but that it didn't last in perpetuity; that it was only good for 10 years. Now we have got nothing. Now we have got nothing.”
“He told the Iranians: When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. How did that work out? The regime is intact. The regime is led by a younger ayatollah with the same last name, emboldened by the knowledge that they survived months of war against the world's greatest superpower. The Iranian opposition is weaker than it was before the war, and the Iranian people are no freer today. [[Page S4099]] Look, regime change wars rarely ever end well. And the idea that Trump was going to be able to go in and quickly topple the regime, much like he did in Venezuela a month earlier, was always absurd. But he did it anyway. OK. Goal No. 2, no nuclear weapons: ``We will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. . . . They will never have a nuclear weapon,'' Trump said on the day he launched the war.”
“Mr. President, Donald Trump is dragging us back into war again, and no one is exactly sure why. He achieved almost none of his objectives that he set out at the beginning of war, while spending tens--if not hundreds--of billions of dollars and forcing Americans to pay more for everything, especially gas and groceries. It has been only a few days since the fighting resumed, and gas is already up to $4.89 nationally and $5.44 in Hawaii. And the President can't be bothered to explain why we are at war again and what we are supposed to be getting out of it. So let's just go through his own stated objectives at the start of the war and see where we stand today. No. 1, regime change: ``There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER''--all caps--Donald Trump said in the first week of war.”
“Senate and a grateful nation, I thank Sergeant Major Marshall, his wife Jillian, son Miles, and their entire family for the commitment, sacrifices, and contributions they have made throughout his honorable military service. Congratulations on completing an exceptional and successful career. ____________________”
“It is no surprise that he has been honored with numerous military awards and decorations including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, several Army Meritorious Service Medals, the Combat Action Badge, and the Signal Corps Bronze Order of Mercury, among others. His exemplary service and steadfast leadership have earned him the respect and admiration of colleagues and superiors alike. Any tribute to Sergeant Major Marshall would be incomplete without acknowledging the unwavering support of his wife Jillian and the joy brought by their son Miles. Jillian has stood by Sergeant Major Marshall at every step of his journey, providing love, care, and wisdom. On behalf of the U.S.”
“military, while also advising our team on defense and veterans' issues. His dedication and professionalism were evident in every task he undertook. For the past 3 years, he has served in the Army's Senate liaison office, where he has played a crucial role in answering congressional requests for information, staffing engagements between Army senior leaders and Members of Congress, and leading congressional delegations abroad to conduct defense oversight. Sergeant Major Marshall's lengthy and diverse career was filled with experiences that have enriched him both as a soldier and a person.”
“Enlisting as a combat documentation production specialist in 2006, Sergeant Major Marshall began his service as a combat photographer at 55th Signal Company (Combat Camera) and completed one combat deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He held various tactical and operational positions, including roles at American Forces Network Livorno, the Army Entertainment Detachment, the Cyber Center of Excellence Noncommissioned Officer Academy Detachment, the Defense POW/ MIA Accounting Agency, and 9th Psychological Operations Group (Airborne). Sergeant Major Marshall was competitively selected to serve as an Army congressional fellow for the fiscal year 2023 and was assigned to my office. During his fellowship, he gained valuable insights into the workings of Congress and its relationship with the U.S.”
“Throughout his career, Sergeant Major Marshall has personified the highest standards of Army professionalism and the soldierly values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage to the Army and our Nation. Many of us on Capitol Hill have enjoyed the opportunity to work with Sergeant Major Marshall and it is my privilege to recognize his achievements. Sergeant Major Marshall is a distinguished leader whose career in the U.S. Army has been marked by unwavering dedication and exceptional service. Born and raised in St. Louis, MO, Sergeant Major Marshall embarked on his military journey with a commitment to excellence that would define his decades-long career.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4104] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] TRIBUTE TO SERGEANT MAJOR DAVID MARSHALL Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional noncommissioned officer in the U.S. Army, SGM David J. Marshall, who currently serves as the deputy chief for the Army's Senate Liaison Division and will retire from Active Duty after 20 distinguished years of active Federal service at the end of this year.”
“The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. [[Page S4100]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.”
“And the reason I voted no yesterday is because I am not voting for a defense bill until this war is over, and I am not voting for a defense bill until we get to debate the most important thing happening in terms of our national defense. We are at war, and we are being prevented from even overseeing it. We are just asked to fork over tens and tens of billions of dollars without so much as weighing in on this is an authorization of the use of military force. The President, as the Commander in Chief of our military, may engage kinetically with another country. We have decided that. We have been elected. We have decided that. None of that happened. Why? Because they don't have the votes for that. Why do they not have the votes for that? Because this war is stupid, and the public knows it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.”
“If you want to claim that the ICBM array that the IRGC had was a danger to the United States, come down, at least testify before the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, and then at least have a debate on the damn floor of the U.S. Senate. And it is worse than that because to the extent that we have had any votes at all, we actually have prevailed. A majority of Members of this body have said that this war should come to a conclusion. And so my Republican colleagues are saying: Hey, why don't we pass the Defense authorization? After all, it is a big bipartisan bill, and we always do it. That is true. We always do it. And I think 13 out of 14 years or 12 out of 13 years, I voted for the National Defense Authorization Act.”
“It is a war, but we have 60 days.'' ``Oh, the war is off because the MOU for the cease-fire is now being implemented.'' And now the war is back on, and they are acting as if, as a legal matter, this new kinetic engagement is a second and separate war and the clock starts again and you have got 60 days again to delay Congress from weighing in. And this is not some procedural nicety. This isn't me as a politician, like, protecting my prerogatives. The reason this matters is the people's representatives in the Congress have to vote before we go to war. And there are some narrow exceptions. If we are in danger, you don't want to have to, like, assemble Congress if we are in immediate danger. Fine. We are not in immediate danger. We were never in immediate danger.”
“And what happened many months ago was Donald Trump woke up one morning and said: I guess we are taking kinetic action against Iran. And people are finding: OK, sorry, what? What exactly are we doing and why? There was no buildup; there was no explaining; and most importantly for us as U.S. Senators, there was no vote on the authorization of the use of military force. Now, they are going to say that under the War Powers Resolution, they have this ability to basically take military action if there is an imminent threat to the safety of the United States of America. And then they would have 60 days, and it is kind of complicated exactly how it works. But what they have said now is that ``No, this isn't a war.'' That is No. 1. ``Oh, yeah. Sorry.”
“Sea lanes were open. Sea lanes are always open. That is not a foreign policy objective of the United States of America in the sense that we have to work really hard to do it. Freedom of navigation is a basic principle that we enforce around the world, but we don't have to bomb anybody to get it. And so now the endgame is: Let's try to get the strait open and pretend that the reasons that we went to war were not the reasons that we went to war. And I think what is the most disgusting about all of this--you know, someone used to say: Armies don't go to war. Countries go to war. Now, why does that matter? You cannot go to war without the support of the American public. You cannot go to war without explaining to the American public what you are up to.”
“We went to war to change the regime. Not only not a success, but a terrible failure. We have got a younger and more radical and entrenched Ayatollah in the regime of Iran. And now they know they can withstand our best hit. We went to war to eliminate their nuclear program; and not only did we not do that, but Donald Trump himself is kind of characterizing it like it is no big deal. And so now we are negotiating not for any of the reasons that were stated to put our servicemembers in harm's way and to spend tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer funding for this war and to raise the price of gasoline by a buck, buck fifty a gallon, to raise the price of fertilizer and plastics and natural gas and electronics--to raise the price of almost everything. We met none of our objectives, and now our objective is just to keep sea lanes open.”
“The administration has mostly stopped talking about it, and there was no mention of Iran's support for Hezbollah or other groups in the MOU. In fact, the MOU allowed Iran to sell its oil freely, even though Trump's own State Department told Congress that oil exports are a primary revenue source for Iran's financing of proxies. So all of the stated objectives of this war have not been met. Finally, how are they doing on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and free? Well, it is closed again, and Trump and Iran are back and forth going at it over who gets control and who gets to charge tolls. To be clear, this was never a problem prewar. And so now the objective in ending this war is just to get to the status quo before the war. We went to war to eliminate their ballistic missile capability--not on the nuclear side. Not a success.”
“Trump sets before us an impossible goal. And when it fails, he then moves the goalposts or backs down completely. The next goal, obliterating Iran's missiles: We're going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally . . . obliterated. He said that on February 28. But according to press reports, U.S. intelligence Agencies estimated that roughly 70 percent of Iran's pre- war missile stockpile was still intact as of May. And just this week, Iran started firing missiles again at tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and at military bases across the Middle East, demonstrating both its leverage and its ability to continue fighting. OK. Well, what about the goal of cutting off Iran's funding for proxy groups?”
“And the criticism of the Obama agreement--and I was on the floor defending it--was that it didn't last long enough--not that it wasn't any good, but that it didn't last in perpetuity; that it was only good for 10 years. Now we have got nothing. Now we have got nothing. To that point, having repeatedly ruled out allowing any uranium enrichment and demanding that Iran turn over its uranium stockpile, Trump has changed his tune on both: ``It is a little hard''--``it is a little hard''--``when other people have it, other adjoining states have it, and you're not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that.'' This is Trump on uranium enrichment. On acquiring stockpiles, he said: You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff. Why even bother? And that is the story of this war in a nutshell.”
“And the idea that Trump was going to be able to go in and quickly topple the regime, much like he did in Venezuela a month earlier, was always absurd. But he did it anyway. OK. Goal No. 2, no nuclear weapons: ``We will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. . . . They will never have a nuclear weapon,'' Trump said on the day he launched the war. Now, it is true that heavy strikes last summer and the first phase of the war this spring have set back Iran's nuclear program. It is also true that in the memorandum of understanding--that has since fallen apart--Iran agreed to the same thing it agreed to under the JCPOA. Under the Obama nuclear agreement, we got all of this without having to go to war.”
“So let's just go through his own stated objectives at the start of the war and see where we stand today. No. 1, regime change: ``There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER''--all caps--Donald Trump said in the first week of war. He told the Iranians: When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. How did that work out? The regime is intact. The regime is led by a younger ayatollah with the same last name, emboldened by the knowledge that they survived months of war against the world's greatest superpower. The Iranian opposition is weaker than it was before the war, and the Iranian people are no freer today. [[Page S4099]] Look, regime change wars rarely ever end well.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S4098-S4100] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Iran Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, Donald Trump is dragging us back into war again, and no one is exactly sure why. He achieved almost none of his objectives that he set out at the beginning of war, while spending tens--if not hundreds--of billions of dollars and forcing Americans to pay more for everything, especially gas and groceries. It has been only a few days since the fighting resumed, and gas is already up to $4.89 nationally and $5.44 in Hawaii. And the President can't be bothered to explain why we are at war again and what we are supposed to be getting out of it.”
“Section 2694(b)(2)(C) of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking ``Native American human'' and inserting ``Native American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian human''; and (2) by striking ``Native American tribes.'' and inserting ``entity in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriations Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.).''. ______”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S3889] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SA 6662. Mr. SCHATZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of subtitle E of title III, add the following: SEC. 358. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HERITAGE AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE.”
“(d) Form of Report.--Each report required under this section shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. ______”
“(c) Elements.--The report required under subsection (b) shall include-- (1) an overview of the People's Republic of China's assistance to foreign media organizations, media-related organizations, foreign journalist training programs, study tours, and exchanges undertaken during the most recent 12- month period, including the PRC-controlled entities involved in such engagements and the regions of focus for such assistance; (2) an assessment of any shifts in the People's Republic of China's international media engagement strategy during the most recent 12-month period and the impacts of China's engagements on foreign press coverage; and (3) a description of any media engagement activities or assistance by the United States, its allies, or multilateral organizations in the regions of focus for the People's Republic of China's international media engagement strategy.”
“(a) Defined Term.--In this section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means-- (1) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and (2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. (b) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for the following 2 years, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees that describes developments in the People's Republic of China's international media engagement strategy, including journalist training and support programs.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S3889] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SA 6661. Mr. SCHATZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of title XII, add the following: SEC. 1270A. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA'S INTERNATIONAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY.”
“(2) The risks to United States operations and activities of insufficient editorially independent news media in the Indo- Pacific region. (c) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex. ______”
“(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report outlining the benefits, to United States foreign policy, defense, and security objectives in the Indo-Pacific region, of editorially independent, fact-based journalism in the Indo- Pacific region, including throughout the Pacific Islands. (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall include an assessment of the following: (1) The benefits to United States foreign policy, defense, and security interests of an information environment in the Indo-Pacific region, including the Pacific Islands, that includes fact-based reporting on the malign activities of competitors and adversaries in the region.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S3889] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SA 6660. Mr. SCHATZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following: SEC. 1252. REPORT ON BENEFITS OF FACT-BASED JOURNALISM IN INDO-PACIFIC REGION.”
“(c) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form but shall include a classified annex. (d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means-- (1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and (2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. ______”
“(3) An assessment of what capabilities are available to sufficiently address waves of drones attacks on facilities of the United States and a cost estimate of implementing countermeasures across such facilities in the Persian Gulf, including any costs expected to be covered by host nations and what the share of the cost should be. (4) An assessment conducted jointly between the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State that assess any impacts to bilateral relations between the United State and nations hosting installations of the United States as a result of the targeting of those installations by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including an assessment of what host nations are considering as benefits to their long-term security relationship with the United States and concerns regarding any liabilities from hosting those installations.”
“(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall include the following: (1) A comprehensive battle damage assessment of how installations of the United States were impacted by Iranian drone and ballistic missile attacks during United States-Iran engagements in 2026, including-- (A) a cost estimate of damages; (B) a description of enduring damages that have impacted readiness of United States force posture in the region to date; and (C) an assessment of remaining vulnerabilities to similar attacks that caused damages at those installations. (2) An assessment of-- (A) hardening of sites that were struck that needs to take place; (B) measures that were taken to sufficiently prepare those sites for the strikes they endured; and (C) impacts to future operation of those sites if certain hardening requirements are not met.”