Brian Garrison is a resident of South Portland. 

If Congress believes the United States should deepen its military integration with Israel, it should have the courage to debate that question openly.

Instead, the House of Representatives buried that decision inside the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual defense bill that Congress is under enormous political pressure to pass. Among its many provisions is Section 219, which would further integrate the U.S. and Israeli militaries. Americans deserve far more than a passing reference in a 1,000-plus-page bill. They deserve an open debate and a direct vote. 

That debate never happened in the House.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, introduced an amendment to remove Section 219 from the NDAA. The House Rules Committee never allowed it to reach the floor. Members were denied the opportunity to vote specifically on whether this provision belonged in the legislation. Instead, they were left with a familiar choice: vote for the entire defense bill or vote against it. 

That is not how consequential foreign policy decisions should be made.

Whether Americans support or oppose closer military ties with Israel is not the point. Reasonable people can disagree. But they should expect Congress to make those decisions transparently, particularly when they may shape future military commitments and the use of taxpayer dollars.

Supporters of Section 219 argue that deeper military integration strengthens a key ally and enhances regional security. If they are right, they should welcome an independent debate. Policies that advance America’s interests should not require the procedural shelter of a must-pass bill.

History makes that argument even more compelling. The NDAA is not emergency legislation. Congress typically spends months negotiating it, and final passage has often occurred in December or even January. There is ample time for hearings, public testimony and stand-alone votes on provisions that could redefine American military policy. The claim that Section 219 had to be folded quietly into the NDAA simply does not withstand scrutiny.

Now the responsibility shifts to the Senate.

Maine’s Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King will have the opportunity to decide whether Section 219 remains in the final legislation.

According to Federal Election Commission data compiled by Track AIPAC, Collins has benefited from more than $2.5 million in donations and independent expenditures from pro-Israel political action committees and affiliated donors during her career, while King has received more than $200,000. Those figures do not establish improper influence, nor should they be treated as proof of wrongdoing. They do, however, make transparency and independent judgment all the more essential when legislation involving Israel comes before the Senate.

The question facing Maine’s senators is straightforward.

If Section 219 represents sound policy, why not let it stand on its own? Why deny senators — and the American people — a direct vote on whether the United States should deepen its military integration with another nation?

Mainers value honesty, accountability and plain dealing. We expect important decisions to be made in the open, especially when they concern war, peace and the constitutional responsibilities of Congress.

Collins and King should insist that Section 219 receive the debate it has so far been denied. They should remove it from the NDAA and require Congress to consider it as a stand-alone measure.

If Section 219 deserves to become law, it deserves to face the light of day.