Ranking Member McCollum Floor Remarks on 2026 Defense Bill
WASHINGTON — Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN-04), Ranking Member of the Defense Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks on the House Floor in opposition to the fiscal year 2026 Defense funding bill:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2026. But I do want to begin by recognizing the work of the staff. Jennifer Chartrand, Jason Gray, and Ed Etzkorn on the minority side. Ben Peterson and my Defense Fellow, Lisa Lawrence, in my personal office. Adam Sullivan, and the majority staff, thank you for your hard work. I also want to thank Chairman Calvert for his leadership of the Subcommittee – and his friendship. You had to write a bill without a full budget request. Those are unprecedented circumstances – and I know this process was difficult.
Turning to the bill. The Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Appropriations Act totals $831.5 billion. That is the same level that DoD is currently operating at under the full year Continuing Resolution. As I said, this bill was written without having the full Fiscal Year 2026 budget request in front of us. That is a huge problem – let me explain why.
The Defense Appropriations Act is this Committee’s largest discretionary funding bill. It is a complex piece of legislation – dealing with a wide range of national security issues – such as: The construction of ships and submarines, the launch of technologically advanced satellites, the development of hypersonic weapons; and most importantly – supporting our servicemembers and their families who so bravely serve our nation.
It is in the best interests of our nation for the Defense bill to be written the right way – with thoughtful analysis. And DoD’s programs require a detailed annual review – because these programs naturally ebb and flow over time. The only way for our Subcommittee to analyze this information and write a thoughtful and informed bill is to review a full budget request.
I want to take a moment to illustrate that. These two poster boards represent a single DoD program that we fund. The Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft. This is an advanced helicopter for the Army. This poster shows the 9-page Congressional Budget Justification documents for this program from last year’s budget request. These documents represent the critical granular details that the Subcommittee needs to properly evaluate DoD programs. It shows us not only what the request is for the coming fiscal year – but also what is expected to be spent over the next five years.
That detail – the next five years – is how we can see if the program is still on target compared to the previous year’s information. And because we don’t have clean audits from DoD, except from the Marines, these documents are the only way we can track the money. The submission of these documents is part of the normal budget process that every Administration and Congress have operated under. So, this year, because the Trump administration failed to submit a full budget request – what did we have to write this bill? I call your attention to the second poster board.
The number you see here – on one line – represents all we received on the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft to write this bill. Nine pages of background on the one hand – one number on the other. This Administration gave us almost no information to make decisions. It's completely unacceptable. I wonder what the Majority’s reaction would be if the Biden administration had failed to submit a budget request.
The fact is – we did not have the President’s plan for his Defense priorities when this bill was written. That makes this bill an incomplete product. For example, Golden Dome at this point is merely a concept – not a plan. None of us have been briefed on how the Administration intends to spend $175 billion or deliver it in three years, because the analysis by DoD is incomplete. We don’t know how money for Golden Dome will impact future defense bills.
Another example is the cost to deploy the National Guard around the country to do Homeland Security’s job. In June, we found out what the cost is to deploy 4,000 California National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. It is $134 million. But now, Secretary Hegseth is reviewing a request from the Department of Homeland Security to deploy more than 20,000 National Guard troops across the country.
And what is the end goal? To turn the National Guard into the National Police? I don’t agree with that. The National Guard is intended to be used for specific purposes. They are used in their states when natural disasters occur, or yes, in times of civil unrest – when their Governors call them up. And then federal Title 10 missions when they are deployed overseas, or in times of national emergency like on September 11th. Deploying troops of that magnitude has a serious budgetary impact.
But Secretary Hegseth did not give us a complete budget, so we don’t know what thought went into the duration of these deployments, how much they will cost, or where the funding will be pulled from to pay for them.
The President proposes, Congress disposes – that’s the way our system works. There are consequences to not following this process. We may end up buying too many of one platform, wasting precious taxpayer dollars. We may end up buying too little of another – leaving a gap in our defense capabilities. When we write this bill without seeing the full budget request, we fail to maximize the buying power for the taxpayer. So, it is deeply unfortunate that the Trump administration, and OMB in particular, has put the Committee in this position.
This bill also includes many of the same poison pill riders that were in previous House versions of the Defense bill. These partisan social policy riders should never become law. But they lead us down a road that may once again result in a full year CR. Last year’s CR was bad enough – a second would be a catastrophe. Our national security cannot afford another lost year.
Once again, the bill limits the ability of Service personnel and their families to receive the reproductive health care they deserve. Women make up almost 20% of the military services, and many women service members live in a state that has limited or banned access to reproductive health care. Once again, there are provisions that disenfranchise lesbian, gay, and transgender service members. These poison pill riders will not go unnoticed by our troops – they will impact recruitment and retention.
As I told Secretary Hegseth last month, we have witnessed a deliberate effort by the Trump administration to silence and diminish the achievements of minorities and women in the military. Their dedication, heroism, and sacrifices, on behalf of our nation deserve recognition – not erasure. As a former history teacher, I know that acknowledging uncomfortable truths about our own history is the only way we move forward together.
Since World War II, the Department of Defense has made great strides in building a military that is more reflective of the population of the nation it defends. That should be celebrated – not reversed. That is how we build a more perfect union – together.
Mr. Chair, regrettably at this time, I will be unable to vote for passage of this bill. I cannot recommend to my colleagues that they support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
###