[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 209 (Thursday, December 11, 2025)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1184-E1185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DISINTERMENT OF REMAINS OF FERNANDO V. COTA FROM FORT SAM HOUSTON 
                        NATIONAL CEMETERY, TEXAS

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 10, 2025

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (NDAA).
  The National Defense Authorization Act is an important piece of 
annual legislation that governs the policies of the Department of 
Defense and authorizes our common defense. It is deeply unfortunate 
that Congress considers this year's NDAA amongst a steady stream of 
alarming misuses of the U.S. Armed Forces by President Trump. While in 
office, the President has issued unlawful orders, directed unlawful 
deployments, and has unlawfully misused Congressionally appropriated 
funds. President Trump has chronically abused his executive authority 
as Commander in Chief, and I do not believe that Members of Congress 
can divorce our consideration of this NDAA from the context of his 
actions in the Oval Office. Let me provide just a few examples.
  First, President Trump has ordered the U.S. military to strike 
maritime vessels in the Western Hemisphere that the Trump 
administration claims are carrying narcotics. These military activities 
in the Caribbean have not been authorized by Congress, and the 
administration has deliberately withheld information from Congress on 
the nature of these strikes. I believe these to be extrajudicial 
killings and they should end immediately. These strikes are occurring 
amongst a large-scale military buildup in the Caribbean, the goals of 
which have also not been adequately explained to Congress.
  Second, the President has circumvented the authority of several state 
governors and federalized the National Guard for the purposes of 
deploying them in support of domestic law enforcement activities. 
Domestic policing is not among the National Guard's core missions, and 
the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the President from deploying 
the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement missions unless the 
Insurrection Act of 1807 has been invoked, which President Trump has 
not done. These unlawful deployments are a serious misuse of the 
National Guard for political purposes by President Trump and they 
should end.
  Finally, President Trump's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
repeatedly violated Article 1 of the Constitution and appropriations 
law. OMB has frequently directed the Department of Defense to withhold 
funding to authorized programs against Congressional intention and 
direction. During the longest federal government shutdown in history, 
OMB directed the Department to unlawfully use money appropriated for 
national security research and development projects to pay military 
personnel. I support paying our troops in the event of a shutdown, but 
the way OMB and the Department moved this funding was not legal.
  These are just three examples in a very long list, but the fact is 
that President Trump has a record of chronic unlawful misuse of our 
military and national security assets. This is dangerous to our 
national security, the future of our democracy, and this behavior is 
directly relevant to whether Congress should endorse an NDAA that, in 
my opinion, does not do nearly enough to reign in an Administration 
that is increasingly out of control. Let me lay out several of my 
concerns with this legislation.
  First, this NDAA authorizes $890 billion in funding for the 
Department of Defense, National Nuclear Security Agency, and other 
national security agencies. This is approximately $8 billion above what 
the President requested in his Fiscal Year 2026 Budget for national 
security agencies. Additionally, the Trump administration received $156 
billion in new mandatory defense funding through the Republican 
reconciliation bill. I voted against providing the Administration with 
that funding, and I believe it will give them too much flexibility in 
supporting a broad range of the Administration's national security 
priorities. However, Congress has yet to receive a final spend plan 
from the Department that accounts for the full amount of that funding. 
Given the broad increase in defense funding provided through 
reconciliation, and my previously stated concerns about OMB's unlawful 
approach to appropriations law, I do not believe that Congress should 
authorize additional defense funding in the NDAA above the budget 
request.
  Second, I am concerned that this NDAA will enable the Trump 
administration's continued misuse of the National Guard and active-duty 
military for domestic law enforcement purposes. The bill codifies 
portions of several of President Trump's executive orders regarding 
U.S. military activity on the Southern Border, including the 
administration's establishment of new National Defense Areas. It does 
not provide clear statutory limits on the use of lethal military force 
on U.S. soil, including narrow definitions of pressing circumstances, 
judicial oversight where practical, immediate Congressional 
notification, and independent after-action review. This NDAA needed to 
provide clear limits on the President's border operations including 
sunset provisions and reauthorization requirements. It fails to do so. 
The NDAA also provides no restriction on the increasingly routine 
federal use of the National Guard and active-duty forces. At the very 
least, it should limit any domestic support in policing to requests by 
the governors or narrowly tailored, time-limited federal authorizations 
with mandatory training and Congressional reporting requirements.
  Third, while this NDAA repeals the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for 
Use of Military Force (AUMF) related to U.S. military actions in Iraq, 
the bill does not repeal the 2001 AUMF that was passed following the 
terrorist attacks September 11, 2001. I have long supported a repeal of 
the 2001 AUMF because it was intended to authorize military action 
against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, a mission that has long since ended. 
The legal authorities provided in the 2001 AUMF are now being twisted 
by the Trump administration to justify military strikes in the Western 
Hemisphere on drug traffickers, who are international criminals, but 
that the Administration has defined as ``terrorists.'' As I stated 
previously, I believe this to be unlawful. These actions are dangerous 
mission creep that I fear may lead to another catastrophic war of 
regime change in Venezuela. If the Trump administration needs new legal 
authorities to conduct strikes on terrorist groups in the Middle East, 
then they should seek new authorization from Congress. If they feel 
that military action in the Western Hemisphere is a national security 
priority, then they should seek authorization from Congress as well and 
let the representatives of the people decide as our Constitution 
states.
  Fourth, this bill continues to embrace the Trump administration's 
culture war attacks on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility 
programs that undermine recruitment, retention and unit cohesion. 
Americans have watched President Trump turn the Defense Department into 
an ideological battleground for imposing a right-wing ideology that 
politicizes personnel policy and damages the readiness of all our 
service members. While this conferenced version of the NDAA does not 
include all the culture war related provisions from House version, it 
does retain some. That includes a provision prohibiting transgender 
Americans from participating in sports at the U.S. service academies, 
which is an unnecessary attack on transgender Americans who are already 
prevented from serving in the military by President Trump. Republicans 
must stop injecting partisan politics into the NDAA because these 
provisions promote only division and will continue to discourage 
Americans from serving our Nation.
  Fifth, this NDAA authorizes expanded military cooperation between the 
United States and Israel that, considering the Israeli military 
campaign in Gaza that has killed approximately 70,000 Palestinians, I 
do not support. To be clear, I have always supported and continue to 
support cooperative missile defense programs like Iron Dome because I 
believe that no child--Israeli or Palestinian--deserves to have 
missiles fall on their heads. However, this NDAA goes beyond support 
for missile defense and includes provisions that strengthen the defense 
production relationship and technology sharing, including unmanned 
systems, between the United States and Israel. As a strong critic of 
Prime Minister Netanyahu, I am appalled at the way he has prosecuted 
the Israeli military campaign against Hamas terrorists that has led to 
catastrophic death and destruct in Gaza. With a fragile ceasefire in 
place, we should be focused on ensuring the continuation of a peace 
process that ends the war for good, not expanding our military 
cooperation with Prime Minister Netanyahu's government.
  Finally, this NDAA contains a provision that allows the Department of 
Defense and the

[[Page E1185]]

Services to move funds between several different accounts of 
appropriated funds including the: Military Construction, Operations and 
Maintenance, and Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation accounts, 
without seeking approval from Congress. I understand that the intent is 
to expedite the construction of the new headquarters for U.S. Space 
Command, but the authority provided by this provision is broad, 
permanent, and will likely be used beyond this one instance. The 
Appropriations Committee meticulously considers how funds from these 
accounts are to be used, and this authority offers too much room for 
abuse by the Administration. Given OMB and the Department's repeated 
abuse of appropriations law this year, the idea of providing the 
Department with new authority to move funds absent Congressional 
approval should be a non-starter for the Appropriations Committee. This 
provision must be rescinded in the Defense Appropriations Act.
  As the Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Defense, I completely agree that the United States must maintain a 
strong military force that can deter wars and win them if necessary. I 
appreciate the work that has been done by my Democratic colleagues on 
the Armed Services Committee to improve this bill. They have worked 
hard and I will have a similarly difficult task in negotiating the 
conference agreement for the Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Appropriations 
Act. My colleagues have given their best efforts and put forward a 
product that attempts major reforms to a clearly broken defense 
acquisition process, many of which I support. But America must be both 
strong and principled, and the National Defense Authorization Act must 
reflect that spirit. We can modernize our forces and protect our 
homeland without eroding the Constitutional safeguards that make our 
democracy worth defending. It is with deep regret that, in my opinion, 
this bill does not do enough to meet that standard.
  I oppose this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

                          ____________________