Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, America is not alone in our military support of Ukraine. Our NATO and European allies are continuing to provide billions of dollars for support themselves. That is in line with the decision that President Trump announced the other day. Let's not abandon the EU or our NATO allies now, and let's not abandon Ukraine. The Ukrainian people did not ask for this war. They deserve our continued support. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I would stress to the body that the majority has already eliminated any funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative in this bill. I believe this is a huge mistake. The amendment does not accomplish cutting the funding. I would point out again, Madam Chair, when I talked about international war crimes and when the previous speaker was talking about the loss of life in Ukraine, there are 20,000 Ukrainian children who have been kidnapped by Russia. They were ripped from their homes and the arms of their mothers and fathers. That is a war crime, and we should not be silent on that. Madam Chair, I thank President Trump for now realizing it is important we come to Ukraine's aid through our NATO partners. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I understand why the gentleman from Wisconsin is offering this, and I don't agree with the spirit in which it is being offered. The Department of Defense, the administration, this Congress, and I have been pretty clear on opposition to the unwelcome assertions of China's control over Taiwan. As a former social studies teacher, geography was part of what I would teach. I would never use or display in my classroom a map showing that China is in possession of Taiwan, but let me take the teaching just one step further. This amendment would prevent the Department of Defense from buying or displaying a map that shows how China views itself in the world, how China is putting out mis- and disinformation on what they think the world should look like according to them. It would force the Department, in my opinion, to put its head in the sand when showing at the military academies China's view of the world and why we have to work so hard to defeat that. I hope we can all agree that it is important to know what our allies and our adversaries are thinking and that we have adults at our military academies who can sort out the difference and see the differences in the maps. As a geography teacher and a person who used to use maps, that is my only opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I know what he is getting at. I don't disagree with it, but sometimes you have to have what your enemy has, how they view the world and what they are showing the world, in juxtaposition to how we view the world and how Taiwan needs to remain independent. Congress and the Department should focus our time and energy on being clear about China with respect to international boundaries and rule of law. As a geography teacher, I had to say something, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026. Before I begin getting into the bill, I recognize the work of my staff: Jennifer Chartrand and Jason Gray on the minority side; and Ben Peterson and my defense fellow, Lisa Lawrence, on the other side. Of course, I also recognize the work that we do with Adam Sullivan and all of the fabulous majority staff. I thank them all for their hard work. Mr. Chair, I thank my ranking member, Chairwoman DeLauro, as well as Chairman Cole for their work on this bill. I especially thank Chairman Calvert for his friendship and leadership on this subcommittee. The chairman had to write this bill without a full budget request. Those are unprecedented circumstances, and I know the process was difficult. Mr. Chair, turning to the bill, the fiscal year 2026 Department of Defense Appropriations Act totals $831.5 billion. That is the same level that DOD is currently operating at under the full-year continuing resolution. This bill was written without having any of the full fiscal year 2026 budget request in front of us. That is a huge problem, and let me explain why. The Defense appropriations bill is this committee's largest discretionary funding bill. It is a complex piece of legislation. It deals with a wide range of national security issues, such as the construction of ships and submarines, the launch of technology and advanced satellites, and the development of hypersonic weapons. Most importantly, it supports our servicemembers and their families who bravely serve our Nation. It is in the best interest of our Nation for our Defense bill to be written the right way, and that is done with thorough analysis. The 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. Mr. Chair, I want to take a moment just to illustrate that. These two poster boards represent a single DOD program that we fund. This is 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 critical granular details that the subcommittee needs to properly evaluate the DOD programs. It not only shows us what the request is for, for the coming fiscal years, but also what is expected over the next 5 years. That detail for the next 5 years is how we can see if the program is still on target compared to the previous year. Why is this important? We don't have clean audits from the Department of Defense except for the Marine Corps. These documents are the only way we can track money. These documents are part of the normal budget process that every administration and Congress has operated under. This year, because President Trump's administration failed to submit a full budget request, what do we have to write this bill? Mr. Chair, I call your attention to the second poster board. The number we see here is one line. This represents all that we received on the future long-range assault aircraft to write this bill. Mr. Chair, it is nine pages of background on one hand and one number on the other. This administration gave us almost no information to make decisions. That is completely unacceptable. I wonder what the majority's action would have been if the Biden administration had failed to submit a budget request. The fact is that we did not have President Trump's plan for his Defense priorities when this bill was written. This makes this bill, unfortunately, an incomplete product. For example, Golden Dome at this point is merely a concept and not a full plan. None of us have been briefed on how the administration intends to spend $175 billion or deliver it in 3 years. The analysis by DOD is incomplete. We don't know how the 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 the cost to deploy 4,000 California National Guardsmen and 700 marines to Los Angeles was $134 million. 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. To what end is that goal? Is it to turn the National Guard into the national police? Well, I don't agree with that. The National Guard is intended to be used for specific purposes. Yes, they are used in States when natural disasters occur or, yes, even in times of civil unrest when their Governors call them up. Then there are the title 10 missions, when they are deployed overseas or in times of national emergency, like on September 11. Deploying 20,000 troops has a serious budgetary impact. Secretary Hegseth did not give us a complete budget. We don't know what thought went into this, 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, and Congress disposes. That is the way our system works in the Constitution. There are consequences for not following this process. We may end up buying too much of one platform and wasting taxpayer dollars, or we may end up buying too little of another, leaving a gap in our capabilities to defend our country. When we write this bill without seeing the full budget request, we fail to maximize the buying power for the taxpayers. It is deeply unfortunate that the Trump administration and OMB, in particular, have 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 riders should never become law. They lead us down a road that, once again, may result in a full-year CR. Last year's CR was bad enough. A second one would be a catastrophe. Our national security cannot afford to lose another year. Once again, this bill limits the ability of service personnel and their families to receive the reproductive healthcare they deserve. Women make up almost 20 percent of the military services, and many women servicemembers live in States that have limited or banned access to reproductive care. Once again, the provisions that disenfranchise gay, lesbian, and transgender servicemembers are included in this bill. These poison pill riders will not go unnoticed by our troops, and 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 and not erasure. As a former history teacher, I acknowledge the uncomfortable truths about our own history. Acknowledging them 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. It should not be reversed. That is how we build a more perfect Union together. Mr. Chairman, regrettably, at this time, I will be unable to vote for passage of this bill. I cannot recommend that my colleagues support it. I will work with Chairman Calvert in the future as we go through conference to make sure that we can, together, hopefully, produce a bill we can both support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. As the Chair pointed out, I rise to designate the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and I move to strike the last word.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. I was done with full debate.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I think I have a slightly different script. We are friends, and we will get through this. Mr. Chair, I would like to engage with the gentleman in a colloquy, and I would like to rise on an issue of great importance to me and many Members on both sides of the aisle. Would the gentleman like me to continue?

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, that is the status of Afghan nationals living in the United States under temporary protected status. For 20 years after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the United States maintained a significant military and diplomatic presence in Afghanistan. As part of that effort, we asked the people of Afghanistan to trust the United States and to work with us to support the Afghan National Government and build a new future for their nation. Obviously, we did not succeed. Tens of thousands of Afghans stood shoulder to shoulder with U.S. troops and diplomats serving in Afghanistan over two decades. They did so at great risk to their own lives and the lives of their families. When we withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021, we evacuated over 100,000 Afghans. Why? It is because we knew what would happen when the Taliban would return to power. Those Afghans and their families who had assisted U.S. operations would be subject to the vengeful retribution of the Taliban. Not all of those who were evacuated came to the United States, but many did. The least we could do to repay their assistance was to help the Afghans who risked everything for us to start new lives. The temporary protected status designation that they received was essential to keeping them safe. As of this January, there were 11,685 Afghans legally present in our country under TPS. Many of these families are waiting for their Special Immigrant Visa application process to be completed. This is a process that involves rigorous background checks and requires verification of their work assisting the United States, but it can take up to 7 years for an applicant to receive their visa. That is why it is deeply unfortunate that the administration has allowed the temporary protected status for Afghanistan to expire last night. I have asked the administration for a 90-day extension of TPS protections for Afghans in the U.S. while we work on a legislative solution. That is because for the Afghans who will be sent back under this, this is their worst nightmare, and we know how it will end. Not only will this cost them their freedom, it will cost many of them their lives. Congress must act to prevent this.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, the chairman, for his comments, and I absolutely agree with him. This is the Defense bill that we are debating, and jurisdiction for this issue resides in the Homeland Security Subcommittee. However, we know there is bipartisan support in the House and Senate to protect Special Immigrant Visa holders and applicants. That was demonstrated through the bipartisan passage of the Additional Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022. I have spoken with Members both Democratic and Republican who served in Afghanistan, and they have told me that this is an important issue for them, and they want to find a legislative fix. My hope is that we can find a bipartisan political consensus as the appropriations process moves forward. Mr. Chair, America must stand with the allies who supported us in our two-decade war in Afghanistan, and that is the least we can do.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations full committee.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, may I ask the chairman if he is prepared to close, and I will give my closing statement.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I understand if the chairman has someone come, just so he knows that. Mr. Chair, we have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chair, I thank the Members on the House floor for the patience they have had with my voice this evening. The fiscal year 2025 appropriations process was a complete disaster, in my opinion, and it was the result of the first full-year continuing resolution for the Department of Defense. Our national security cannot afford for that to happen again. We must do everything together in our power to prevent that. That means working in a bipartisan way to make these poison pill riders come out of this bill. I look forward to working with Chairman Calvert and the Senate to improve this bill so that we can avoid another full-year CR. Let us give our servicemembers and their families the bipartisan Defense bill that they deserve. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues at this time to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I support this package of en bloc amendments to the Defense bill that are in the interest of Members on both sides of the aisle, and I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I support this package of en bloc amendments to the Defense bill that are of interest to Members on both sides of the aisle, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I support this package of en bloc amendments to the Defense bill that are in the interest of Members on both sides of the aisle, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I support this package of amendments en bloc No. 4 to the Defense bill that are of interest to Members of both sides of the aisle. I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I also support this package of amendments en bloc to the Defense bill that are of interest to Members of both sides. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I also support this package of amendments en bloc to the Defense appropriations bill that are of interest to Members of both sides of the aisle. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I also support this package of amendments en bloc to the Defense bill that are of interest to Members on both sides of the aisle. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 516, the Condemning the violent June 2025 riots in Los Angeles, California. It is deeply unfortunate that instead of working with Democrats on a bipartisan resolution to condemn violence, Republicans have instead written a partisan resolution designed to attack elected officials in California. Furthermore, the resolution fails to recognize the premature and escalatory deployment of the National Guard and active-duty Marines by President Trump to Los Angeles. When the House of Representatives passes a resolution regarding current events, it should do its due diligence to cite the facts. Unfortunately, it is clear the Republican majority had no interest in accurately portraying the protests in Los Angeles when they wrote H. Res. 516. Instead, the resolution perpetuates a false narrative about Democratic elected officials in California. H. Res. 516 states that local elected officials did not adequately respond to the bad actors and trouble-doers. These claims are patently false. Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles implemented a multi-day curfew and surged law enforcement resources to downtown Los Angeles to maintain control of the situation. This kept the situation contained to 10 blocks of the downtown area. But even when the Los Angeles Chief of Police stated that the demonstrations ``were nowhere near a level'' where the National Guard was needed, President Trump disregarded his opinion and took the escalatory action of deploying 2,000 members of the California National Guard to Los Angeles. Then, on June 10, the President deployed 700 active-duty Marines. Our active-duty military has absolutely no legal role in domestic law enforcement. Los Angeles County has 17,000 law enforcement personnel who are well trained in crowd control. There was no need for the National Guard or the Marines to be deployed by the President, and his decision sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Republicans had the opportunity to bring a resolution introduced by my colleague, Representative Barragan, condemning violence and bad actors, and thanking local law enforcement for their work. Instead, Republicans chose to use the unrest in Los Angeles to play partisan games and attack Democrats in California. Mr. Speaker, it is our duty as public servants to tell the truth. We should all stand for condemning violence, de-escalation of force, and the right to peacefully protest. It is unfortunate that this resolution walks away from these principles. I cannot support it.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the Republican's big ugly, shameful bill is back on the House floor today. Congressional Republicans and President Trump are pushing a massive transfer of wealth from American families in need to the wealthy elite of this Nation. This bill will make devastating cuts to our communities in exchange for massive tax breaks for President Trump, Elon Musk, and their billionaire buddies. I will be joining every Democrat in the House and Senate in voting against this travesty. My colleagues across the aisle who support this bill are voting to cut 17 million Americans off from their healthcare--including 173,000 Minnesotans. What will happen when those Americans delay preventive care and treatments they can't afford because they have no health care? The ugly consequences of this bill include tens of thousands of premature deaths a year. This bill will also force millions more Americans to pay higher premiums, higher co-pays, and higher deductibles for the health care they do receive. Republicans are voting to deliver bigger medical bills to their constituents while President Trump continues to ignore his promise to cut costs for everyday Americans. Because these cuts weren't harsh enough for the Senate, they also slashed hundreds of billions of dollars in critical support that keep hospitals and nursing homes open, especially in rural and underserved communities. Roughly one in four nursing homes and hundreds of hospitals are at risk of closure without those funds. Do any of my colleagues really think that their constituents want fewer hospitals and a shortage of nursing homes in their communities? Another ugly reality of this bill? It will make the largest cut to nutrition assistance in American history, jeopardizing access to SNAP benefits for 40 million Americans, including at least 32,000 of our neighbors in Minnesota. Millions of children, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans are at risk of going to bed hungry if this bill passes. The deeper you dig into this bill, the more ugly, cruel, and completely avoidable consequences you'll find. It weakens our public school system and makes higher education more expensive. It gives sweetheart tax deals to dirty fossil fuel companies and makes it cheaper for them to extract gas and coal from our public lands. It attacks our federal investments in clean energy, which will cost over 790,000 jobs over the next decade and raise household energy bills, all while adding to air pollution and worsening our climate crisis. And even after all that, it will add $4 trillion dollars to the national debt with interest costs over the next decade, saddling future generations with the cost of tax breaks for the wealthy. Apparently, Republicans are content with continuing to ignore Americans across the country who have flooded our offices with calls and taken to the streets to tell them to keep their hands off our healthcare, our education, and food assistance for our children, our elders, and our neighbors in need. They certainly haven't held the townhalls where they would hear that no one wants them to give $1.3 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthy elite--the top 1 percent--and pay for it by cutting roughly $1.3 trillion from our healthcare and food assistance. This is not the direction the American people want our country to go. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no on this betrayal of our values and our constituents, and I will continue to oppose all Republican efforts to take away food, healthcare, and basic government services that Minnesotans rely on.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, impeachment is the most consequential tool Congress has for upholding our duty to defend the Constitution and protect the American people from a president who has betrayed his oath and engaged in illegal conduct. Bringing an impeachment resolution to the floor in the manner it was done by Congressman Green undermines the ability of Congress to make the serious and very real case for impeachment against this or any future president. Impeachment necessitates a deliberate process of investigation and thorough documentation of crimes committed against the American people. President Trump was impeached twice during his first term because he proved himself to be unfit to serve in office, and I voted to impeach him both times. Before bringing those resolutions to the floor, the Democratic Majority in the House committed ourselves to building the case, as a prosecutor does for a trial. We conducted a formal inquiry during the first impeachment, where we subpoenaed witnesses and held public hearings. We produced the evidence to demonstrate that the President had abused his power and obstructed Congress. When President Trump was impeached a second time for inciting an insurrection, the Democratic conference worked together to draft a factual and thoughtful impeachment resolution to reflect what Members of Congress and our entire nation witnessed on January 6, 2021. When the resolution was brought to the floor a week later, almost every House Democrat was a cosponsor. I presided over that vote in the House of Representatives, with full confidence in the case we were presenting to the American people. By contrast, the impeachment resolution that I will vote to table on June 25th was drafted in isolation by one member, and Representative Green introduced it a mere two hours before he came to the floor to push it to a vote. It was rushed to the floor with no coordination with the larger body of us who are working to hold President Trump accountable. It was not a serious attempt to gather the evidence and convince the American people of the grave nature of the President's violations of the law and the Constitution. Currently, the House of Representatives is controlled by the President's party, and it is clear that their majority is unwilling to take even the most basic step to hold President Trump accountable for his illegal and unconstitutional actions. To be clear, the House of Representatives has a duty under the Constitution to hold a president accountable for illegal conduct. This obligation begins with an open, transparent process of Congressional hearings, investigations, and subpoenas. The Republican majority controlling this Congress will not allow that work to move forward, but a premature and poorly reasoned resolution like this hurts our ability to progress on the path to accountability for President Trump. My constituents can count on me to hold Mr. Trump accountable in a manner that is fully transparent and clearly documents his malfeasance as the President of the United States.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, Minnesota and our Nation suffered an unthinkable tragedy in the early hours of January 14th, when our state's elected officials were attacked in politically-motivated shootings. Minnesotans are devastated by the assassinations of Speaker Emerita Melissa Hoffman and her husband Mark and the attempted murder of Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette. These are shocking and heinous acts of targeted political violence against elected officials. They were clearly intended to instill fear in our communities. The additional attempt that night to target Senator Ann Rest and Representative Kristin Bahner demonstrate that this tragedy could have been much worse without the swift actions of Minnesota law enforcement personnel. They deserve our deep gratitude for their coordinated actions to apprehend the suspect. Minnesotans of all political backgrounds must unite to condemn this and all politically motivated acts of violence. In a democracy, we do not respond to acts of public policy with acts of violence motivated by extremism. The entire House of Representatives--both Democrats and Republicans will stand united to unanimously pass a resolution condemning the politically motivated violence against Speaker Emerita Melissa Hoffman, her husband Mark, and Senator John Hoff and his wife Yvette. We will speak in one voice to unequivocally denounce acts of political violence. But even as Congress stands together to oppose this attack on our democracy, Minnesotans continue to mourn the unbearable loss of one of our Nation's finest public servants. I first Melissa Hortman in 1998 when we knocked doors together during her first campaign for public office. Back then, I was a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives and Melissa was a young, determined candidate running in a district that would be difficult for any Democrat to win--but she clearly shared our Minnesota values and demonstrated her ability to form a meaningful connection to her constituents. She didn't win that race, or the next one, but six years later, in 2004 I was thrilled when she won a seat in the Minnesota House, and was delighted when she was elected Speaker of the House in 2019. Thanks to the work of Speaker Hoffman, together with Governor Walz and DFL legislators during the 2023 legislative session, Minnesota's students have free meals in school. Families have access to paid family leave. Women's reproductive rights are protected. All Minnesota individuals and families are supported and protected--with no exceptions. Melissa was the best of Minnesota. She cared about others, treated everyone with dignity and respect, and she knew how to listen and lead, As a public servant and as Speaker of the House, she left Minnesota better than she found it. I will miss her dearly. As we mourn the loss of Melissa and Mark, our hearts are with their children, Sophie and Colin, and their entire family. We wish Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette a full recovery. As we come together as a community to heal, may we find comfort in the words of Melissa and Mark's children: Hope and resilience are the enemy of fear.