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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I want to follow along on the path that our ranking member has laid out, but before I go there, I do thank my Republican colleagues, particularly Chairman Rogers, for his efforts in committee to put together a decent bill, which I did vote for.

However, I am seriously alarmed by some of the things that are in the bill and even more that are likely to occur today. It is the erosion of our defense policy's lack of fiscal discipline, strategic clarity, and constitutional boundaries.

Since we passed this out of committee, the Trump administration has unleashed the military against Americans in American cities. They pushed unnecessarily expensive changes, such as renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War, and they continuously disregard the Constitution of the United States of America.

As of this morning, my Republican colleagues have chosen to inject divisive, partisan amendments into this bill. We will have more about that as the day goes on. At the end of the day, most of those amendments will be adopted, and we will have a truly bad bill before us.

Sorry about that, Madam Chair, but that is where you are headed. If we have a chance, we should take it a different direction.

Let us think about how we are spending the money. We are going to spend probably a billion dollars retrofitting a luxury jet gifted by the Qatari royal family to President Trump. It will be ready, assuming we do it, about the time the President leaves here, and he will have his own personal, royal jet. What in the world is that all about? By the way, the money comes out of the Sentinel program, of which I have a lot of problems. Perhaps that is good. Nonetheless, the fiscal discipline here is simply not available.

We now have a $400 million 747-8. I assume the President will be happy with his new jet when he retires, which cannot happen soon enough, in my view.

By the way, we are putting in three divisions that are always ready to go.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, we have three divisions that are always ready to go. One of them, the 101st Airborne, now has several thousand of its troops deployed to the southern border. For what purpose? I suppose with their binoculars looking around for something, most of which isn't there; a total waste of their ability.

Are they going to be ready? The answer is no.

From the perspective of the Subcommittee on Readiness, it makes no sense.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I was curious what this day is all about, and I was curious about these amendments. Isn't it interesting to ponder these two amendments? The one we just had was about offshore wind and the administration's termination of a project that is 80 percent complete, an environmental project. Here we are with the other side of it, which is where that energy might wind up, and that is in the electric vehicle, nontactical to be sure, although there are places for tactical vehicles.

At the same time, I think I finally figured out what we have here, why we want to rename the Department of Defense the Department of War. It is the war on the environment. Perhaps that is what this is all about from my Republican colleagues: the war on the environment. No, we shall not have wind turbines that actually are efficient, effective, and competitive in providing electrical energy. My goodness, we certainly shouldn't buy any vehicle that might be electric because we want drill, baby, drill, and oil, coal, and all of that nasty stuff to pollute the environment. It is the war on the environment that we are engaged in here.

My colleague from Virginia laid out what this bill is all about, and apparently, my colleague from Florida didn't bother to read the bill. There is total authority within the Department not to buy vehicles that might be damaged by a hurricane.

By the way, why was it allowed to rebuild an airbase where we know the next or maybe the next 10 hurricanes might, once again, flood it?

Oh, my, the Department of War on environment. Is that what this is all about? I certainly hope not.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source