National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I begin by honoring those members of the military that lost their lives recently in the Iran conflict.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith for their leadership. It has also been a pleasure to work with Chairman Bergman. He is a great partner. I also thank the Readiness Subcommittee, both on the majority and minority sides.

I am proud of what we were able to accomplish this year, authorizing over $2 billion for new barracks and dormitories and other critical infrastructure projects. The bill includes positive provisions, including servicemember pay raises, protections for civilian workers, right-to-repair authorities, and transparency on military operations in the Middle East.

Good provisions do not cure the larger problems this bill faces. I voted against this bill in committee and will on the floor.

This bill cannot continue to increase military spending while the administration unilaterally misuses our Armed Forces at home and abroad, as they intend to fight immigration and Iran.

This bill also authorizes more than $1.5 trillion, plus another $300 billion in the reconciliation bill, which apparently will be with us soon, plus another $80 billion or $90 billion to pay for the Iran war. This is an outrageous and dangerously irresponsible amount of spending.

Increasing the budget is not a strategy. Without discipline and oversight, it rewards programs that are over budget, behind schedule, and failing to deliver.

How is all this paid for? It is paid for with cuts to healthcare. Medicaid is eviscerated in the upcoming months ahead. The children's food programs, in schools and out, are not there. They will go hungry. Several hundred billion dollars in healthcare is gone, and it goes on and on. This could not possibly be in our interest.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. I haven't even gotten to my favorite issue, the Sentinel and the programs of our nuclear arsenal. Again, why? We don't need the Sentinel. We don't need to spend billions on it. We can get along quite well with the existing Minuteman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, we seem to be fighting over who gets the last word, so let me take a shot at the last word.

If you are interested in the power of the State to regulate its environment, to regulate its communities, roads and streets, and rivers and lakes, then you should be opposed to this amendment. Why would we do this? This has little to do with national defense. This has everything to do with sticking it to California.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, we need to be very, very clear about what this is all about. This is about a company--one company using the Congress and the power of this Congress to feather its nest, to conduct an oil exploration program off the coast of California that can, and has, in the past been extremely detrimental to the communities in California and to the environment of California.

We ought not be doing this for any single company. This is not a national security issue and certainly not a national defense issue. This is about Sable using this Congress to further enrich itself at the expense of California, the environment, the communities along the coast, and particularly the communities in Santa Barbara County.

Mr. Chair, I urge a strong ``no'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, isn't this an interesting amendment? I happen to resent all of northern California's oil refineries, all five of them. Yes, things are changing. It is not just because it is necessary for all of the environmental reasons that we should be aware of and that seem to be totally ignored by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Yet, the reality is that there really is a need for the kind of projects that my colleague from Santa Barbara just spoke to: offshore wind.

Why is it that this administration is killing the offshore wind projects in California? Why is this administration killing the solar and geothermal projects in California?

Now we have from our Republican colleagues some crying about whether we ought to give an open door to our refineries so that they can do anything that they want to do, and we are going to use the Comptroller of the Department of Defense to write some sort of a document about why it is necessary.

The reality is that we need to move forward. The refineries are going to go forward. It may very well be that some in northern California, as in southern California, will shut down. Why? It is because there is a dramatic change that is occurring in this Nation as to how we are going to use energy. Why would we want to stop that process?

This makes very, very bad public policy that we have used the Comptroller to do what should be done by the staff of the minority party.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth amendment in a row that basically preempts State laws of many different kinds. Frankly, I don't understand why we are doing this. I didn't understand, but I have come to understand we are doing this for a specific company that now has a contract to recycle military equipment at the Sierra Army Depot in California.

Basically, what this amendment does is to reduce or eliminate any California law about recycling, the safety of it, the disposition of the hazardous materials, and the way in which they may be affecting the land, the people, or the environment if the California law is different from the Federal law. In reality, there may be no Federal law whatsoever.

We are faced with a situation here of totally removing the ability of the State, any State, actually--this isn't just for California; this is for every State--the ability of the State to regulate the recycling and the disposition of hazardous defense materials in the State of California.

Why would we do that? What is the logic behind this except to benefit a single company, which is exactly what this does? Why would we do that? Just like the previous three amendments, to benefit one company: Sable. Here we are taking our time, providing a specific opportunity for that company to operate.

With regard to the Sierra facility, I am familiar with it. I am also familiar with the Federal laws in that area. They do not protect the people who are doing the work. They do not protect the community around the depot.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source