WASHINGTON - Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN-04), Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks at the full committee's markup of its fiscal year 2027 bill:
Thank you very much, Chairman Cole.

I want to start by again thanking the majority and minority staff: Jennifer, Jason, and Ed on the minority side, and Taylor, Keri Lyn, Gina, Colleen, Max, Ariana, Jackie, Daniel, and both Adams. And, I would also like to thank my personal staff, Ben Peterson, and my Military Fellow from the United States Army, Robby, for their hard work on this.

Each year, they are given a tremendous task, our staff, to put forward a challenging bill- and this year was no different.

The Fiscal Year 2027 Defense Appropriations Act totals $1.072 trillion, it's an unprecedented topline, equal to the President's request. I will address some concerns I have with the bill shortly. But first I would like to say, Chairman Calvert, I thank you. I thank you for writing this bill that, as of now, only includes one partisan rider that the minority objects to, and I object to that basically on germaneness reasons, it doesn't belong in the bill.

And we, on the Democratic side, but I think every single one of us on the Committee, should all applaud the Chairman's decision and the staff's decision to do this, because at the end of this day and the end of every day, we want a bill that takes care of our warfighters, to do their missions to do them swiftly, successfully, and to come home to their families, and we want to also support the civilian employees who serve alongside them.

I also want to applaud the Chairman's decision to reduce the Department's General Transfer Authority from $6 billion to $3 billion. If the Department and OMB have less leeway to move money around, they will be more inclined to provide us with the information we need to conduct oversight. That's our responsibility under the Constitution.

The majority has also worked to include a broad range of priorities that are important to many Members and their constituents. And I thank the Chairman for working with us in such a bipartisan fashion.

But that is why I also have to say that I am disappointed that I'm unable to support this bill as written today.

This bill provides the Department of Defense with over $1 Trillion - an unprecedented topline. And that comes at a cost of deep cuts to other Appropriations bills. For example, the Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education bill was cut by $19 Billion - a 9% reduction. The education and workforce programs were deeply impacted with these cuts. That includes an $8 billion cut to the Department of Education, and a $2 Billion cut to teacher training opportunities. I have said this before - cuts to education will have a negative downstream impact on our national security. Engineering, math, science, cyber, and computing programs. They will all be impacted by these cuts. These cuts undermine our future national security workforce, and the programs that we fund in the Defense bill will suffer because of it.

The majority cut the State Department funding bill by a shocking 22 percent from last year's level. That would diminish diplomatic and development efforts around the world at the same time when the threats to America are growing.

Over $1 trillion in the Defense bill is not going to keep Americans safer if we have mortgaged our children's future and our strategic diplomacy efforts to pay for it.

Regarding the funding in this bill, there are several areas where I believe funding could be reduced or redirected. First, $605 Million for the National Guard mobilization unit in Washington, D.C. This operation has not reduced violent crime in Washington as the President claims. The only thing it has reduced is the readiness of these Soldiers. They have lost valuable training and exercise time that is necessary for them to be ready for a conflict with a peer adversary.

Second, the bill includes $216 Million for the National Guard Reaction Force. The National Guard does not need new funding to develop law enforcement capabilities that are outside the scope of its jurisdiction. This is simply not the military's job.

Congress has rejected a similar idea during the previous administration after the January 6th Insurrection. The U.S. government has plenty of first responders at the federal, state, and local levels trained to handle criminal activity.

Third, $1 billion in advanced procurement for a so-called battleship that has not even been designed yet. Reportedly, just one ship could cost upwards of $17 billion. I wanted to make sure I got that right. One ship, $17 billion. The subcommittee has spent years working to get shipbuilding back on track. The industrial base still has challenges, such as a backlog of 17 Virginia-class submarines or the recent cancellation of the Constellation-class frigate.

We should not spend money on ships and boats that have not been designed yet. It's simply financially irresponsible.

Fourth, I'm disappointed that funding for Ukraine was not included in the bill particularly because the House just took a bipartisan vote in favor of continued assistance for Ukraine last month.

Failing to include Ukraine sends the wrong signal both to Ukraine and to our European allies, especially as the President continues to reduce the military presence in Europe. I am also concerned about these troop reductions. President Trump is giving Putin the impression that the U.S. will not stand with our NATO allies in the event of future Russian aggression in Europe. America's national security has always been tied to Europe, and NATO has been the cornerstone of peace for almost 80 years. We need only to look to the Arctic to see the threats to our own borders, and to secure them, we will need to work with our NATO allies. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can restore this funding.

And finally, I am concerned that the bill includes a new provision which will indiscriminately cut $1 billion with no Congressional direction. We have seen this Administration use a full year CR and mandatory money in the reconciliation bill for the Department of Defense to circumvent Congressional direction. So why would we want to give more permission for the Department to make more indiscriminate cuts. If we provide them with this authority, we simply have no idea how they will use it.

Separate from the base bill, I have real concerns about the Administration's requests for defense funding outside of the annual appropriations process. First, we have been hearing rumors for months of a supplemental to cover the costs of large-scale military operations around the world.

SOUTHCOM, Operation Southern Spear cost $600 million. And in CENTCOM, President Trump's disastrous war in Iran has cost taxpayers over $31 billion so far. Neither of these operations have concluded or been authorized by Congress. We do not know when they will end, nor do we know what the full costs will be.

If the Administration will request a supplemental, we need to see it as soon as possible, and not in the press. We must have a full and detailed accounting of these operational costs. Only then will we be informed enough to determine what additional funds the Department requires.

Second, the Reconciliation process, as the Chair pointed out and I agree with him totally, is the wrong way to fund the Department of Defense, and we all know that here in this room.

I am deeply concerned about the President's proposal for $350 billion in mandatory funding for defense will have no appropriations input on the enactment. That's not the right way to fund the Department of Defense. Because it took the Department ten months to explain to Congress how they were going to spend $150 billion in mandatory funding they received last year. It's unacceptable, and I have no confidence that the Department will do a better job responding to us in the future. There is also no guarantee that a reconciliation bill will pass. If it does not pass, it will be nearly impossible to fix all the "broken glass" that could occur by forcing these priorities into the base budget.

When the Department makes mandatory funding requests, and the authorizers fail to include it, the DoD looks to the appropriations process to solve their problems. And that means we must reopen the bill in conference, and then, yes, make cuts. That will put this Committee in a very difficult situation.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am confident, I am more than hopeful, that we will have an opportunity to resolve these issues as this process moves forward. And, I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, you personally have my commitment to do that in a bipartisan way for the defense of our nation. As I said, I cannot support the bill as written. But I look forward to working with you to improve the bill.

And, I yield back, Mr. Chair.

A summary of the bill is here. A fact sheet is here. The text of the bill is here.
Watch the full committee markup here.