Ranking Member McCollum Remarks at the Full Committee Markup of the 2026 Defense Bill

WASHINGTON — Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN-04), Ranking Member of the Defense Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks at the full committee markup of the 2026 Defense funding bill:

Thank you, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Chairman Calvert. And for those of you who listen to what I say carefully, I don’t use the word ‘friend’ lightly. I consider both chairs good partners to work with, and Mr. Calvert and I have been in opposite roles both in Interior and here, back and forth, and we strive to serve the United States of America together.

I also want to recognize the work of the staff. The three members on the minority side, Jennifer, Jason, and Ed. I also want to take a second to thank Ben Peterson and my defense fellow Lisa Lawrence in my personal office for the work that they’ve done in this crushed time frame. As well as Adam Sullivan, John, Bill, Kyle, Ariana, Jackie, Max, Dan, Kiya, Gina, Adam, and Taylor.

Thank you all for working together to get information out to the members of this committee. You had to put a bill together without a full budget request from the Trump administration. Those are unprecedented circumstances, as the chair pointed out.

So, here we go. The 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 constructed without having the full Fiscal Year 2026 budget request in front of the subcommittee. And that is a huge problem – here’s why. The Defense Appropriations Act is this Committee’s largest discretionary funding bill. It is an incredibly complex piece of legislation. It deals with a wide range of national security issues. The construction of ships and submarines to build a modern navy, 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. In particular, the budgets for the Procurement programs and the Research and Development efforts require them to be looked at with the ebb and flow that naturally occurs with them. 

And that’s 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 for Members.

I have two poster boards representing a single DoD program that we fund. One single program. The Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft. This is an advanced helicopter for the Army. This poster shows the nine-page Congressional Budget Justification documents for this program from last year’s budget review, when we worked on this bill last year.

These documents represent the critical granular details that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee needs in order 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 the staff can see if the program is still on target when they compare the information from the previous year’s information. That’s the ebb and flow that this committee needs to keep track of. That’s part of our oversight duties

Now, a lot of work goes into this analysis. And these are annual documents required by Congress. They are required by Congress, totaling thousands of pages across all the Department’s programs. The submission of these documents is part of the normal budget request. It is normal to get these documents. That every Administration and every Congress in modern history have operated under.

So, this year, because of the Trump administration's failure to submit a full budget request, what did we have to write this bill? Let me call your attention to the second poster board.

You see a number there – on one line – it represents all we received on the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft. Nine pages of background on the one hand, one number on the other.

That’s what the Administration gave us: almost no information to make these decisions. It's completely unacceptable. And once again, it is not the Chair’s fault. I know he would like it as well. I would ask my majority colleagues on the majority to consider this, because I know that we’ll have discussions about how we’re doing our job here. What would your reaction be if it was the Biden administration that had failed to submit a budget request? I think I know what the answer would be and that’s why I bring this up today. This is unacceptable for this administration to not provide us what’s known as the full J Box. 

That’s what makes this bill incomplete. For example, Golden Dome at this point is merely a concept – we don’t have a plan. None of us have been briefed on how the Administration intends to spend $175 billion or deliver it in three years. A portion of Golden Dome is listed in the Reconciliation bill. But what happens to the Department, what will they do if that does not pass in reconciliation? They can’t come back to this Committee and ask us to fill those gaps. And that’s why Defense spending should never have been included in Reconciliation.

Another example is the cost to deploy the National Guard around the country. On Tuesday, we finally, finally 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? 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 – but that’s when their Governors call them up.

And then there is the 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. Because Secretary Hegseth hasn’t given us a complete budget– we have no idea what thought has gone into the duration of these deployments, how much they will cost, or where the funding will be pulled from to pay for them. And the courts still have not yet decided if the California deployment is legal.

Bottom line, we need a complete budget to make informed decisions in this bill. 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 military and defense capabilities. When we do not see the budget request, we fail to maximize the buying power for the taxpayer.

So, it is unfortunate that the Trump administration, and OMB in particular, has put the Committee, put all of us, in this position.

The Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Appropriations bill also includes many of the same poison pill riders that were included in the previous two Defense House Appropriations bills. And once again, this bill includes partisan social riders that should never become law.

This bill begins to lead us down a road that may once again put us toward a full year Continuing Resolution. 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. I would remind my colleagues that women make up almost 20 percent of the military services. And approximately 80,000 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 in this bill. These poison pill riders will not go unnoticed by our troops and their families, and I believe we will reflect later on on our abilities to recruitment and retention.

As I told Secretary Hegseth on Tuesday, many Americans, myself included, have witnessed what is 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. And that should be celebrated – not reversed. That is how we work to form a more perfect union – together.

Mr. Chairman, and we’ve discussed this, 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. And time is short if we are to avoid a second consecutive year of funding the Department of Defense with a Continuing Resolution.

Every member here knows what needs to happen for this bill to become law. The Trump administration needs to do its job and submit a complete budget request to Congress. The partisan riders have to come out. That is the only way this bill will get the bipartisan support it deserves. It was deeply unfortunate that we wasted an entire year.

So, Chairman Cole, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member DeLauro, to all the members of this committee. Let’s do our job as appropriators and not fail as we did last year. I yield back.

###