Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4365, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024.
As chair of the subcommittee last Congress, I understand fully the difficult process required to put this bill together. That is why I thank the minority staff here with me today, Jennifer Chartrand, Jason Gray, Farouk Ophaso, Ben Peterson, and Mike Clark in my personal office, and Johnnie Kaberle and the fabulous minority staff that gets to work with the great majority staff, who work so hard for all of us.
I wish the bill before us was more focused on our job as appropriators, on training and equipping our troops and ensuring that our servicemembers and their families have their needs met at home. That is why it is disappointing to see the majority use the appropriations process and the Defense bill to push an extreme social policy agenda.
The riders included in this bill divide. They do not unite. Here are just a few examples.
The bill prohibits the Department of Defense's policy to ensure that servicemembers and their families have access to leave and travel allowances for basic reproductive healthcare. The Department's policy is legal under Federal law. The Department of Justice has concluded that fact: ``The Department of Defense may lawfully expend funds to pay for servicemembers and their dependents to travel to obtain abortions that DOD cannot itself perform due to statutory requirements.''
Why is it important that the DOD itself cannot perform due to statutory requirements? Well, first, to be clear, I do not support the Hyde amendment, but let me address it and what this prohibition does even to services legal under the Hyde amendment. It prohibits the DOD from using funds or facilities to perform an abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. That is not in keeping with the spirit of the Hyde amendment.
What does that mean to the nearly 20 percent of our force who are women? They do not get to choose where they serve. Eighty thousand of those women are stationed in States that restrict reproductive healthcare. If you serve in those States and are pregnant because of rape or are on a base that does not offer obstetrics and gynecology services, then you must travel. You must travel out of State for healthcare that you are entitled to.
This bill interprets the Hyde amendment in a way that was never intended. Many servicewomen and dependents will lose access to the exceptions of the Hyde amendment if they are not allowed to travel to seek the healthcare that they need.
This language, in fact, is a de facto national abortion ban, and I believe using our servicemembers to do that is shameful. Young women will refuse to serve. Women will exit the force because of this. Husbands and fathers will not want to serve in States where their families will be negatively impacted.
That is why I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules to strike this provision, but the majority chose not to make it in order. I wish they had. I wish we all would have had the courage to bring this to the floor and allow a debate that our servicemembers deserve.
The majority has also cut programs for diversity, equity, and inclusion, which will discourage recruitment from all across America. The private sector is embracing programs like this to keep a happy, healthy, forceful workforce.
There is language in here that bans critical race theory, but it goes far beyond that, Mr. Chair. In fact, the bill seeks to define what can and cannot be taught in our military academies on whether or not certain topics cause discomfort. This language reads like a ban on teaching American history.
Sometimes facts are uncomfortable. As a former social studies teacher, I want you to know, Mr. Chair, I find this outrageous.
How can our military academies tell the history of the Civil War without teaching about slavery? That is uncomfortable.
How can they discuss the story and history of desegregation in the military without talking about the Jim Crow laws that our Black servicemembers had to struggle with when they returned home from war? That is uncomfortable.
We should be celebrating that the DOD is about to be led by two distinguished Black Americans for the first time in history, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General C.Q. Brown, who is incoming to this position. Their service shows us how building a diverse workforce can take us into a proud future.
There are provisions in this bill that are offensive to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and that will impact who serves. The ban on gender-affirming care will drive transgender servicemembers out of the military.
Why, Mr. Chair, do we have an IRS provision on the tax treatment of individuals who hold the belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman in this bill? It is not germane. Words matter.
Divisive riders will hurt the military, undermine readiness, and make our national security weaker. They must come out of this legislation if we are to gain bipartisan support for this to become law.
Now, turning to the numbers, the majority has funded this bill at $826.4 billion, very close to the President's budget, but I am concerned about cuts in two areas.
First, the majority has made a $714 million cut to military climate programs and banned the assessment of climate impacts on the Department. We know that climate change is a national security threat, and it drives conflict. Ask our Indo-Pacific Commander. He will tell you that climate change impacts how United States forces operate.
Our military installations also face threats from climate change right here at home. Look at the $10 billion in damage from severe weather events on installations, like Tyndall Air Force Base, Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, and Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. This spring alone, a typhoon seriously damaged Anderson Air Force Base in Guam to the tune of $4 billion, and that is just the Air Force cost.
When we cut climate programs, we pay for it on the back end.
I also oppose the $1.1 billion in cuts to civilian personnel in this bill. Ten years ago, Congress directed DOD to cut civilian personnel by $10 billion over 5 years. We achieved no substantial savings. We shifted the workforce from civilian employees to expensive contractors.
Mr. Chair, I have a long history of bipartisan cooperation, and I am proud of that. I am confident that Chair Calvert and I can find a way to get agreement in conference so that we can move the Defense spending levels forward, but I have to say again how disappointed I am that the majority has included these extreme social policy riders. They will undermine the force of today, discourage building the force of tomorrow, and leave us weaker as a nation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, which is so important to the defense of our Nation.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose this bill because it is incomprehensible to me that the majority would actually spend as much time--really, any time--on culture war riders and focusing on their extremist priorities as opposed to protecting the national security interests of our Nation.
Here we are, once again, considering a bill that has no chance of becoming law as we hurdle recklessly toward a costly government shutdown that will be damaging most importantly to the morale of our troops, which this bill purports to actually want to protect, and to the defense of our Nation.
Worse, this historically bipartisan national security bill has been hijacked by radical rightwing extremists. Instead of confronting grave national security threats like climate change, this bill is riddled with bigoted attacks on Americans who bravely serve our Nation. It needlessly politicizes the military and undermines the freedoms of those who risk their lives to protect ours.
My colleagues across the aisle were tasked with crafting a Defense bill that supports all of our servicemembers, not just those who are White, straight, and conservative, and they failed miserably on that mission.
I won't stand idly by as culture warriors try to undermine the service of LGBTQ+ individuals who bravely fought and continue to fight for our country every day.
To top it off, listen to this: The report that goes along with this bill puts the word ``extremism'' in quotes. Republicans can't even admit that this is a real concept or threat.
I plead with my Republican colleagues to put forward a Defense bill that focuses on the real needs of the members of our military, focuses on the actual national security interests of our country, and stops feeding the extremism that is actually emanating from their own party. I beg them to stop using this critical bill, one that we literally count on to keep every American family safe, as a disruptive wedge for partisan, discriminatory policies.
Keep America strong. Don't divide it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), who is on the Committee on Foreign Affairs as well as a very important member of the Committee on Armed Services.
As many military leaders have told us, diplomacy, defense, and development go together. The more we don't spend in those venues, the more bullets we have to buy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, everyone is welcome to serve in an All- Volunteer Army. We need everyone to feel that they are welcome to serve in our All-Volunteer Army, and that sometimes means doing a little extra outreach.
I had to do that with my military academies to let all the students know that this was a great opportunity for them to get a great education and serve our country.
It was outreach. It was inclusion. It reached out to diversity. It has made our military academies stronger for that.
The bottom line for me is, if you are willing to take the oath of office, if you are willing to put your life on the line for our country, and you can get through boot camp and want to serve our country, you are welcome to serve.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), who is a fabulous member of the Subcommittee on Defense and invaluable in helping us understand our challenges in the Indo-Pacific.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close as we have no further speakers.
I say again how sad I am to be disappointed to see these divisive riders in the bill. They are all to gratify the extreme right of a few people in the Republican Party.
I also don't make a habit of complimenting the Senate, but we should take note that their appropriators are operating in a bipartisan fashion. Their Defense bill was passed out of committee 27-1 because it had no divisive language, and it made cooperation possible.
Go back and watch our markup of this Defense bill, and you just have to ask yourself: Are we doing our job as appropriators? We are not discussing our increasingly broken military healthcare system, which I have heard from military family and servicemembers, both here at home and when I have traveled abroad on bases; the lack of support for mental health; the lack of access, even here in the United States, to immediate healthcare concerns for themselves and their family members.
As I pointed out, we are solely now facing lack of obstetrics and gynecology on our military bases right here in the United States, making necessary the travel that the Department of Defense put in for women servicemembers and women family members to get their full healthcare needs.
We could be talking about the merits of supporting Ukraine and how the democracies are coming together to show Communism and terrorism that we stand united in our goals and principles; or we could be talking about how to jump-start shipbuilding to compete with what China is already doing in the Indo-Pacific, but we spent our markup arguing about extreme social policies that have no place in this bill.
Now we are running out of time with the shutdown fast approaching. Our servicemembers and their families have made a tremendous, considerable sacrifice to serve our Nation. The least we can do is give them a government that stays open and pays them on time.
Now, I know Chairwoman Granger and Chairman Calvert and I believe that we can get this job done, but the majority must show that it can govern in a bipartisan fashion and work with us to get these bills done. That is what we have done plenty of times and what I am hopeful we will do in the future. For right now, I have to ask my colleagues to oppose this bill, and let's get the appropriations process back on a bipartisan track.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. It contains a series of bipartisan amendments in support of Member priorities on both sides.
If the gentleman from California has no other comments, I am ready to yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Representative Wilson of South Carolina and my bipartisan amendment supporting efforts to modernize personal equipment for female servicemembers and small-statured servicemembers.
Twenty percent of our servicemembers are women serving our Nation. It is alarming, Mr. Chair, that, according to a new Army report, nearly half of female servicemembers in the Army Special Operations Command have trouble accessing and acquiring equipment that is the right size for them.
Imagine one of these warriors are in the battlefield, they are facing an enemy combatant, and their ill-fitting body armor prevents them from proper use of their rifle. That puts them at severe risk for harm and prevents them from executing their duty.
There is no excuse for not giving these patriots the equipment and tools to allow them to do their job safely and effectively. Our military women, they leave their families, they train hard, and are willing to risk their lives to defend our freedom. We need to do a better job to stand up for theirs.
I urge my colleagues to join me and my friend Representative Wilson of South Carolina in a bipartisan amendment to make sure that all our servicemembers have the equipment that they need to keep them safe and do their job effectively.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), in support of this en bloc, which I also support.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesies.
However, I am particularly concerned as we move forward. This bill directly impacts the men and women who have unselfishly put on the uniform.
I am grateful to the chair and ranking member for working together, but let me be very clear, we have an overall defense bill that is enormously challenging for the American people.
First, it is important for them to know that the members of the United States military, women in particular--1 in 5 members of the military are women--will be blocked from reproductive services that are necessary. Those women, in particular, that live in the State of Texas will be blocked from achieving the reproductive health that they need.
The LGBTQ+ community is also negatively impacted by healthcare.
Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with military preparedness and should not be involved. In addition, the general has offered a commitment to electric vehicles, but yet this bill cuts $714 million.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to say I do not want a government shutdown, but I would like us to do the right thing. Democrats don't want a government shutdown. We are obviously fighting against those who are getting direction from the former President who says to shut it down.
I am very grateful that my amendment dealing with triple negative breast cancer is in this legislation. This is very important to me. It seeks to allocate $10 million to fund triple negative breast cancer research. This issue is extremely important, especially for the brave men and women in the military who are 20 to 40 percent more likely to develop breast cancer.
Mr. Chair, I offer my appreciation to both the military and the Biden administration for making research into breast cancer a priority. This amendment would allow for more research so that we can one day, hopefully, learn a way to reduce this most devastating aspect of breast cancer. This has a more deadlier impact--that is why it is called triple negative breast cancer--that targets women.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment, and a complete defense bill that responds to the needs of the United States military.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment [#90/#233] to H.R. 4365--the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2024.
I want to thank my colleagues on the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order.
The Jackson Lee Amendment [#90/#233] is a simple and straightforward amendment in an unfortunate and distracting appropriations bill.
Namely, the Jackson Lee Amendment [#90/#233] seeks to allocate $10 million to fund triple negative breast cancer research.
This issue is extremely important, especially for the brave men and women in the military, who are up to 20-40 percent more likely to develop breast cancer.
I must offer my appreciation to both the military and the Biden administration for making research into breast cancer a priority, but there is still work to be done.
The Jackson Lee Amendment [#90/#233] would allow for more research so we can one day hopefully learn a way to reduce the number of military personnel affected by breast cancer.
Several initiatives I have designed in the past have aided active- duty servicemen and women along with veterans, such as enforcing accurate reporting of maternity mortality rates among the Armed Forces, addressing physical and mental health concerns, and securing authorization for Triple Negative Breast Cancer as well as Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder.
I am very proud of the work that I and Congress have done to address the health concerns of active duty and veteran servicemen and women, but there are still improvements to be made.
The men and women who are on the front lines or have already completed their valiant service to this country have many pressing issues and challenges they already must face; breast cancer should not be one of them.
Our service members fight and sacrifice for our freedoms.
Now, as lawmakers, we should be working to ensure to protect their lives and freedoms--not trying to take their rights away.
While the negatives of this defense appropriations bill disappointedly outweigh my positive amendment, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Jackson Lee Amendment [#90/#233]--notwithstanding my strong opposition and encouragement to vote down the underlying bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to be clear, in this bill we pay for our troops and our military to equip and do training, but in this bill there is no funding for salaries for Ukrainian troops.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chair for working in such a bipartisan fashion for these en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for bringing this forward. I wholeheartedly support her amendment, and I hope that it will be adopted in the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for sharing his journey, and I am glad he is doing well.
I don't oppose the study of many of these drugs, but I am going to lay out why, in this particular instance, I am going to oppose this.
On this floor we have had many a debate about whether or not medical marijuana should be used for post-traumatic stress for veterans and whether we should do research and all kinds of things, things I have supported. Time and time again we haven't done that, in part because it is a schedule I class drug.
The Department is concerned about a study involving Active-Duty servicemembers. They acknowledge, and I am glad that they do, that the benefits are being pursued by veterans. The implementation for Active- Duty servicemembers would be much more challenging at this time because it involves questions around clearances, legal hurdles, and the logistics that would just appear to hamper the success of a pilot program or study with Active-Duty servicemembers.
As I said, schedule I--I gave the example of marijuana--under the Controlled Substances Act means that they have a high potential for abuse and there is no currently accepted medical treatment in the United States for this right now. There is a lack of accepted safety and there is no medical supervision in a way we can move forward.
For this reason, the Defense Health Agency does not believe it could be implemented. I support working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to look at anything we can do to help welcome our servicemen and servicewomen home and to find the help that they need.
Currently, with the way that this amendment is written, I reluctantly cannot support the gentleman's amendment. I look forward to working with the gentleman in the future on this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, Ukraine is a democracy. It is a democracy fighting for its life every single day, and the world is watching. The brave men and women of Ukraine are fighting to protect their democracy.
Vladimir Putin violated international law with his illegal invasion of Ukraine. Putin and his thugs are committing war crimes on a mass scale in Ukraine, including the senseless murder of civilians, even while they are in the hospital.
He continues to violate international laws by deliberately targeting marketplaces, supermarkets, daycares, and apartment buildings. Putin has also broken other international laws by permitting--encouraging, not just permitting--encouraging the abduction of Ukrainian children to be taken from their families and their parents.
Democracies need to stand together, and that is what they have been doing. It is the responsibility of the United States, the strongest democracy, and all nations that respect democratically elected governments to support Ukraine's fight against this unlawful Russian aggression.
That is exactly why we have seen such a global response to these atrocities. Our allies, our partners, our fellow democracies are also supporting Ukraine in this fight by providing tanks donated by allies and partners; air defense artillery rounds donated by allies and partners; fighter aircraft donated 100 percent by allies and partners; mid- to long-range air defense systems 75 percent donated by allies and partners; counter unmanned aerial systems 69 percent donated by allies and partners; 155-millimeter artillery systems 64 percent donated by allies and partners; Armor, personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles 63 percent donated by allies and partners; Stinger missiles 52 percent donated by allies and partners; Javelin command launch units 52 percent donated by allies and partners; Javelin missiles 46 percent donated by allies and partners.
America is not providing support alone. The democracies are together on this.
I would point out for a fact that when Ukraine decided to become a democracy, to engage in the free world, they gave up their nuclear weapons. They gave them up. What they are just asking for us right now is to support a fellow democracy.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment. Support Ukrainians in their struggle to defend their homeland.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I have some disagreement with some of the, I want to say, opinions put forward by the gentleman.
We do have oversight at our embassy on where equipment is going. The chair and I have been in classified briefings asking these very tough questions together because, you are right, we want accountability.
As we saw, when the President of Ukraine didn't think he was getting the accountability he deserved from his military leaders and people in his government, he very publicly removed them and said: No, this is not acceptable to me. The oversight is taking place, and our allies are also doing oversight.
As I pointed out earlier, this is an invasion that was brought on for no other reason than a land grab. Putin is trying to put Russia back in an image that he wants to see it in the future.
Who is watching him do this and who is watching who stands up to him? Well, Russia is watching as to what we do, and we know China is with all the chatter we are now hearing about Taiwan.
What does that mean? That means that democracies have to stand together to support another democracy.
As I mentioned earlier today, I was previously a social studies teacher. Take out a map and take a look at the emerging democracies in the area who feel under threat from Russia. Take a look at our allies that have suffered through World War II with aggression from Germany. The democracies, Germany included, have learned from that lesson: We cannot be silent. We have to be there for each other.
Mr. Chair, I will also point out that the money that is being put forward, again, is for equipment and training, and we are doing that with NATO. We are doing that together. As I said, I feel very passionately about supporting Ukraine.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment to have a discussion with the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, we have had this provision in the bill for the last 2 years to prohibit funding for the work performed by EcoHealth Alliance for research within China. As the gentleman is very aware of, because he is very knowledgeable of this, it is a global nonprofit organization that works to protect wildlife and public health from the emergence of disease.
This is enacted in law, and we have worked in a bipartisan manner on the committee on this.
The gentleman's amendment, if I understand it correctly, now seeks to establish a full prohibition on funding to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., in this bill.
I thank the gentleman for the fact that his amendment preserves the waiver option for the Secretary of Defense to make a determination that working with EcoHealth Alliance remains a national security interest. As we move forward, I would like to better understand any ramifications as we move to this broader exemption that the gentleman wants to do as we go to committee to make sure that it lives up to what I heard him say on the floor, to my understanding, with the waiver.
I work a lot on the ICC, the International Conservation Caucus, so I want to make sure that the wildlife work that we are doing is protected as well as the research.
I thank the gentleman for bringing this forward, but I have a few more questions, and we will work on it during conference.
Mr. Chair, I would also just reflect on something that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane) said in our last debate, where he implied fertilizer and other materials were being supported by the United States Government. That is correct, but that is in the State Department bill. What I said about what we were supporting and not doing in this bill, I was factual with, and I just wanted the gentleman from Arizona to understand that what he was talking about, I wasn't confused, it is in the State and Foreign Operations bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett). We know that these countries are seeking to influence our way of life, to find ways to divide us and ultimately make us weaker. We know that China and Russia are very active in this. They are even working to seek to influence our elections and disrupt our democracy.
This amendment is necessary to ensure that we have the tools necessary to fight against these nefarious actions. I support this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in the strongest opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect when being addressed.
Assistant Secretary Skelly has served in her role admirably, as she has done as her time as a naval officer. Assistant Secretary Skelly has been a naval fighter for over 20 years. I am a little upset because the lack of respect that has been shown to Secretary Skelly by the last speaker is surprising for me on this House floor, which we hold in such high esteem.
She has been a naval flight officer for 20 years, including time spent in the Pacific. While we are all aware of how important this region is right now, there is absolutely no basis for this amendment. The colleague who offers this amendment provides no real substantive reason why Assistant Secretary Skelly should have her salary reduced.
There is only one reason why Assistant Secretary Skelly is being targeted, because she is simply a woman. I have fought long and hard with many women before me and with our allies for pay equity. We still have a long way to go, but I am never going to vote to reduce a woman's salary. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, when it comes to service to our country, there are a couple of things we ask from people: To take a loyalty oath, and they do that; to pass basic training and to be up and fit for the job that they are called upon to do, and they do that. Secretary Skelly qualifies in all those areas.
As far as the conversation that my colleague is having, I am not going to engage in hateful rhetoric, Mr. Chair. Instead, I will focus on the admirable service that our transgender, gay, bisexual members do in an all-volunteer Army. They volunteer to put their lives on the line. They deserve the dignity and respect this House can give them.
Mr. Chair,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I am just baffled here that we can pick and choose what is science and what is not science, what is human rights and dignity and respect and what is not human rights and dignity and respect. I look forward to having a discussion on climate change based on science with the gentlewoman from Colorado at some point in time.
Mr. Chair, I thank all our servicemen and -women for their service, and their families, who serve alongside them. I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, Dr. Dillard has dedicated his life to service to the United States. Commissioned in the United States Army in 1981, he served for 26 years and retired as a colonel after numerous command and staff positions. I thank him for his service.
In his current position as director of diversity and inclusion, he provides oversight and guidance to individuals working across the Department of Defense on these issues, and he has the experience to know where improvements can be made.
The goals of the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion promote the Department of Defense culture of dignity and respect that values diversity and inclusion and readiness imperatives.
As the Department executes the Secretary of Defense's direction to ``take care of our people,'' it is about supporting both the servicemember and their family, regardless of who they are. It is about having their backs while they put their lives on the line in the defense of this country.
The chairman and others in this room are fond of Ronald Reagan, so I offer a quote: ``Government's first duty is to protect the people, not to run their lives.''
Rather than trying to run the lives of each servicemember into the ground, let us concentrate on what should be the focus of this bill-- ensuring that our military servicemembers have the tools they need to defend our Nation and to come home safely.
Need I remind everyone in the room that we are in the middle of a recruitment crisis? The chair and I have heard why we are in the middle of a recruitment crisis. Many companies and private businesses are in the middle of a recruitment crisis. What are they doing? They are opening up positions for diversity and inclusion to make sure people know that they are welcome in their companies.
We want to make sure that people are welcomed in the Department of Defense. We must find ways to attract young people to choose to serve this country, to know that their service will be honored.
If they feel that serving in different branches of the Department will open them up to ridicule, disrespect, or worse, why would they volunteer to serve and put their lives on the line?
Mr. Dillard is trying to ensure that all feel welcome. He should not be vilified for that. He should be applauded.
Let's stop the attacks on building a diverse force that represents all of America.
Mr. Chair, I remember as a young high school student--I am not afraid to admit my age with my gray hair--in 1972, all the discussions about women in the military academy. That was a radical idea. You know what the military had to do. They had to go out and recruit, and they had to show that they wanted the diversity. They wanted the respect.
I am proud I do that with my military academies, where I have Hmong, African Americans, and people from different sexual orientations apply to serve our country. They put their lives on the line. It is duty first for them.
Let's stop the attacks on building a diverse force.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, some of the remarks that my colleague made, I am not even going to bother to respond to because I don't think they are appropriate for this august Chamber which we are in.
The military only takes people who are qualified to serve. Then after they have done their service for our country, they should still be respected. This is a very sad conversation that we are having, and I go back to the fact about diversity.
I will use the example of the Hmong in my community who fought along with our soldiers in Vietnam and protected and rescued many of our pilots. They came here, and they didn't have a written language. They came here, and they didn't know about military academies. They wanted to honor and serve our country, but they weren't quite sure how to go about it.
What did we do? We created opportunities for diversity and inclusion, and it is amazing when you put a hand out to somebody and say: We want you to be part of this great Nation. You are willing to put your life on the line, and we thank you for that.
The chair and I know why we have a recruitment problem. I understand why we have a recruitment problem. I serve on the committee, and I am doing everything I can to address it, and part of that is this office.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, in 2021, Congress passed the NDAA, creating a naming commission with the intent of renaming military installations and relocating memorials that celebrate the Confederate attempt to rip apart the United States for the sake of maintaining slavery.
The NDAA was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, the NDAA had so much bipartisan support that it defeated President Trump's veto by a vote of 322-87.
The few remaining Confederate monuments at minor installations that have already not been renamed or removed will happen soon.
As required by Congress and implemented by the Secretary of Defense, Arlington National Cemetery is required to remove a Confederate memorial and has initiated the process for careful removal and relocation of the memorial located in section 16 of the cemetery.
Therefore, this amendment not only attempts to defy the overwhelming bipartisan support and will of Congress, but it is likely too late to even make a difference. Congress decided in a unified fashion that it was time to move on from the regretful error of the Civil War and human rights atrocities. This amendment will do nothing to stop that.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, 2 years ago, we passed the NDAA, which established a bipartisan commission, including both civilians and military, to rename installations that were associated with the Confederate States of America. This amendment attempts to stop the implementation of the commission's recommendations.
I am pleased to see that the administration has already started the renaming process, officially renaming seven installations with two more to go by the end of October. I will provide some context for these renamings.
Fort Benning in Georgia was named after a Confederate general who strongly supported slavery and was a leader in the secession movement. Now that fort has been renamed Fort Moore after Army Lieutenant General Hal Moore and his wife, Julia Compton Moore.
General Moore commanded the first large-scale battle of the Vietnam war, and Julia Compton Moore was instrumental in setting up survivor support networks and casualty notification teams.
Then there is Fort Bragg in North Carolina. That was named after a former slave owner and one of the most hated generals in history. In fact, he was hated by his own Army, and some of the Confederate soldiers tried to end his life. He is also known to be a military failure. That base has now been renamed Fort Liberty.
Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, which was named after a failed Confederate general, will be renamed Fort Walker after Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, the first woman surgeon in the Civil War and the only woman awarded the Medal of Honor.
Renaming these installations helps us remember that they deserve to be remembered in a way that celebrates the true patriots of this Nation who supported this country and who have contributed to its advancement. Why would we continue to honor and celebrate traitors to this very Nation? They were also involved in horrific crimes.
In my home State of Minnesota, we have been renaming several buildings and schools and other areas that were named at one time honoring who we thought were a great territorial Governor and State officials, but as history was finally taught in its entirety, we found out they committed atrocities. They were part of the genocide against Tribal nations.
My State, my community, decided they should not be honored, and I believe that is also true in the case of these military installations. Congress and the administration set up an appropriate and fair process to review and rename them.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, when we name something, whether it is a post office, whether it is a road named by a local government, we do so to honor something that is significant. We do that to show we are proud of this person. We are proud of their actions. What we are doing with the renaming in these commissions is saying: Let's reflect back. Why was this named this way? Are we proud of people who led the secession against this country? Should we look toward the new patriots, the people who have served in the past and the people who are currently serving to give them the honor, the privilege, of showing forward their courage and actions as we strive to be a more perfect Union?
Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. This amendment advocates for civilian personnel in the Department.
As I pointed out earlier in my opening remarks, we tried this once before and we did not see substantial savings. People who work in the civilian part of our Department of Defense do an admirable job. They work very hard for all of us, and they are loyal to us.
They are loyal to the Department of Defense. They are not loyal to a contractor or at the whim of a contractor if they decide they want to change a pay scale or to do something different, or raise the price of the contract and hold us hostage.
When it comes to the Secretary to determine what is necessary for staffing, I am going to leave it to the Secretary at this time, and I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, let me be crystal clear. The United States does not currently plan to deploy forces to Ukraine in the ongoing defense against the Russian invasion. The United States does not currently plan to deploy forces.
There is no current or future year funding for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to Ukraine in this bill or any other bill that I am aware of. Therefore, this amendment would not impact any current or planned support to Ukraine. However, this amendment would impede the ability of the Department to provide security aid to American personnel in the region. I am not talking about in Ukraine, just in the region, it would impede it.
For example, this prohibition would block the Department from providing security forces to assist congressional or executive delegation travel to Ukraine. I don't think that was the gentleman's intention, but that is what this amendment does.
Additionally, it would hinder the Department's ability to provide emergency security assistance to American personnel in the U.S. Embassy if there was ever a threat or a need for an evacuation.
This amendment would not change how the U.S. is aiding Ukraine in their war against Russian aggression. Meanwhile, it would change the way we protect Americans abroad.
We put our elected and civil service in danger by doing that, so I strongly oppose this amendment. I don't think this was the gentleman's intention, but I have to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I understand what the distinguished chair of the Defense Subcommittee just said. He doesn't support U.S. troops in Ukraine. That would be a vote we would have to take here in Congress, but this amendment does so much more than that, and that is why I was clear that I don't think it was the gentleman's intention.
This amendment would impede the ability of the Department to provide security and aid to American personnel in the region. It would block the Department from providing security forces to even assist congressional or executive delegation travel to Ukraine: the military escorts that go with us.
Additionally, it would hinder the Department's ability to provide emergency security assistance to American personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine if there was ever a threat or a need for an urgent evacuation.
I understand clearly the gentleman's intentions. This amendment does more than that. I would possibly ask the gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment at this time and remove the things that I am concerned about in it, and then I would be happy to look at supporting not having U.S. forces go to Ukraine without Congress having a discussion.
Mr. Chair, unfortunately, this amendment does so much more than what the gentleman's, I believe, true and honest intentions are.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, once again, I want to be crystal clear. This amendment does so much more than what the gentleman from Florida refers to, and the gentleman from Arizona who offered it.
When we have Members who are doing oversight, this would prohibit the military escorts that go on codels with us or with the executive branch from taking us on those missions. I don't think that was the gentleman's intention, and that is why I am asking for the amendment to be withdrawn and written in a way that truly reflects what both my colleagues just spoke to.
I think you will get a lot more support on that than saying that we couldn't even bring troops in if we needed to do something at our embassy to evacuate State personnel. The Marines on post wouldn't be enough to do it by themselves.
Mr. Chair, I ask the gentleman to reconsider the way this amendment is written so that we can have bipartisan support.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. 125 offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to the end that the amendment stands disposed of by the earlier voice vote thereon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, here again is an attempt to cut off any support for Ukraine as they fight to defend their country from an illegal Russian invasion.
As I said earlier, once again, Putin is attempting to rewrite the map of Europe through the use of force. He is doing so in violation of international law. He is deliberately targeting civilians, as I mentioned: hospitals, daycare centers, apartment buildings.
While he is doing that, yes, he is destroying the economy and the livelihood of Ukrainians in the process.
Putin and his thugs are committing war crimes on a mass scale. The United States and the other democratic nations of the world must continue to oppose him. If we do not, then he or another authoritarian leader will try something like this again, yes, either in Ukraine or elsewhere in the world.
Earlier, I laid out that America is not alone in the support of Ukraine. Our allies and our partners are donating tanks, air defense systems, artillery, vehicles, rockets, and infantry fighting vehicles. This list goes on and on.
Let's not abandon our fellow democracies.
Let's not abandon the EU and our NATO allies now.
Let's not abandon Ukraine.
Faced with daunting odds against Russian forces, they have taken up a mantle to defend themselves, defend their values, and our shared democratic principles. They deserve our continued support.
Madam Chair, I understand my colleague has a different view than I do, but I thank him for a respectful engagement in this discussion, and I urge my colleagues at this time to oppose this amendment.
Madam Chair,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas who struck the last word and also spoke on behalf of the chair of the full Appropriations Committee.
I had the pleasure of being with Mr. Womack in Poland where we did oversight of the very money that we are talking about right now. I have been in other theaters where we were supporting other troops, and what we saw was the enthusiasm, the commitment, and the dedication from the Ukrainians who were under our supervision getting ready to receive training, and it was outstanding. It was like nothing else I have ever seen before.
We do need to do our due diligence. That is one of the reasons why I opposed an earlier amendment which would have actually restricted the military from escorting us on those types of codels into the future.
In my years in Congress, I have worked on many international foreign affairs issues. When I was in Germany just before the Ukrainian invasion took place, I have never in my life seen the democracies so united to work together because they know of the threat of what is happening. They want to make sure--and we want to make sure--that we continue to give the Ukrainians the support they deserve.
I have a friend who is returning home from just visiting, and her cousin is going back after taking some R&R after being wounded. The stories that she is sharing and the stories that I have heard from other people in Ukraine is everybody is participating; 60-year-olds are driving the tanks because they can't be out there on the frontlines. They are doing that, and they are able to do that because of the support and the equipment and the training that we have given them, not only to fight against Russia, but to also maintain the equipment they have.
I thank the gentleman for striking the last word and speaking to this, and we need to do our due diligence to make sure that the oversight is done right.
I do not support Mr. Gaetz's amendment as offered today, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for this respectful debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.
The decision by the Biden administration to transfer cluster munitions to the Ukraine, in my opinion, was unnecessary and a sad mistake.
Congress has been clear in prohibiting the transfer of any cluster munitions with a dud rate greater than 1 percent.
The legacy of U.S. cluster munitions into the battlefield in Ukraine undermines our moral authority and places the U.S. in a position that directly contradicts 23 of our NATO allies who have joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
The legacy of cluster bombs is misery, death, and an expensive cleanup after generations of use, and I have been in Laos, and I have worked with other countries to clean up this legacy.
As has been pointed out, the U.S. pays tens of millions of dollars annually to remove cluster munitions from Laos and the Vietnam area. These remnants of war continue to kill and maim civilians as we are here today.
As a strong supporter of the Biden administration's policy in Ukraine, I must state in the strongest possible terms my absolute opposition to the U.S. transferring cluster munitions. These weapons should be eliminated from the stockpiles.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, we have seen several of these amendments. I think, Madam Chair, you know how disappointed I am that these types of amendments have been proposed by the majority, but especially this one.
Secretary Austin has dedicated his life to service in the United States. For 41 years, he served in the United States Army, which began as an appointment to West Point and rose to the rank of four-star general. He served as the 33rd vice chief of the staff of the Army and completed his career as the head of Central Command.
Secretary Austin was awarded the Silver Star for his leadership in the Army's 3rd Infantry Division during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
He didn't have to return to service for the Nation after giving 41 years of his life, but when called by President Biden, he served again.
You may disagree with the administration's policies as well as we have done over our careers with different administrations, but Secretary Austin has done nothing to merit this amendment.
Upon taking the job of Secretary of Defense, Secretary Austin has outlined his priorities for himself and the Department:
First, defend the Nation, which included prioritizing China as a pacing threat and address advanced and persistent threats.
Second, take care of our people, this includes growing our talent, building our resilience and our readiness and ensuring accountable leadership.
Third, and finally, succeed through teamwork. Focus on working with allies and partners and building unity within the Department.
Each one of these principles should be policies and qualities that we support in our Secretary of Defense, no matter what administration he or she serves in.
Secretary Austin has worked tirelessly to ensure that our allies and partners remain united.
Secretary Austin has personally pulled together the ministers of defense from all over NATO to mount an unprecedented coordination of equipment, training, and tools that the Ukrainians need to fight Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion.
Upon taking office, our relationship with the Philippines was at an all-time low. Secretary Austin reaffirmed our Visiting Forces Agreement, which led to the creation of a rotational access to nine total locations, strengthening our defense in the critical Indo-Pacific area.
He has made historic breakthroughs through our cooperation with Japan, leading to Japan updating their national strategy documents, which increases security burden sharing in the region with a key ally.
He has worked to cement the principles of a trilateral security pact between Australia, the U.K., and the United States, and that helps us with our U.S. military position in the Pacific.
He has introduced programs that will help our military personnel, for example. As pointed out, recruitment is at an all-time low, but it is not because of anything Secretary Austin did.
Here is what he is doing to keep retention and attract military personnel: introducing universal pre-K, which will cut daycare costs for our military men and women; instituting increases in basic allowance for housing for Active-Duty servicemembers in 28 military housing areas that have experienced an average cost of more than 20 percent spike in rental housing costs; expanding military spouse employment opportunities, strengthening support to our families; and cutting the cost of food at commissaries.
Each one of these efforts help retain our servicemen and -women in service to our Nation.
There, of course, is more work to do, and there always is, but Secretary Austin is making the effort, and there is no need for us to make such a personal drastic attack by eliminating his pay.
For these reasons, I ask you and my fellow colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I will be brief. The loss of our veterans to suicide is tragic. Coming from a family with many who have served, and in going to military reunions, I know how serious this issue is. To put this on Secretary Austin, to me, is just wrong, and it is disrespectful. I have had these conversations with him personally about this.
I remind Members that the Trump administration started the immediate, quick, fast-paced withdrawal out of Afghanistan. When President Biden came into office, he knew we were at a critical juncture to try to get people out safely. He was able to negotiate a small extension, but that was it.
It is a shared responsibility for what happened in Afghanistan.
Maybe the administration could have planned it better, but the Biden administration's hand was forced by what the Trump administration had put into action.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment. We all support funding for our national security, but should any department, agency, or entity really get an opportunity to request additional funding outside of the President's and administration's request?
The service chiefs appear before the committee each year to discuss how their budget needs are included in the National Defense Strategy. Most of the combatant commanders testify before committees also. Congress is able to assess, with strength and oversight, what we believe the needs are for our country and its national security.
With the levers that we have in place, I support my colleague's amendment, and I urge others to support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. NewsGuard does a service that provides tools to counter misinformation, and it has been around since 2018.
It uses tools to catalog and track all of the top false narratives spreading online, which is effective in countering hostile misinformation targeting Democratic governments like our own.
There is no doubt that China, Russia, Iran, and other bad actors are trying to influence our country through its mis-, dis-, and mal-information.
We need every tool available to determine what is real and what is not when it comes to what is being reported by the press.
The amendment does nothing but weaken our ability to do that, so I oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, just a few facts about NewsGuard. Journalists are employed by NewsGuard. They have technology people that score websites based on their reliability and general trustworthiness.
It is not censored. People still have the freedom to read and to believe whatever they choose to, but this analysis is designed to be transparent.
It also includes the name of the staffer who analyzed the information. If somebody has a dispute with it, they know exactly who made the score system happen.
Let me just tell you a couple of things, Mr. Chair, about what they do. They look at the frequency of publication that has inaccurate information, the extent of sourcing and original reporting on information, and the degree of demarcation between news and opinion journalists.
Mr. Chair, I attended both public and private grade schools and colleges, and I remember the good Sister saying, you are entitled to your own opinion, it should be said so respectfully, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
One of the things that they try to do is ferret out what is hard news and what is somebody's opinion. We are entitled to read people's opinions.
When opinions somehow get woven in and they become fact, it becomes very confusing for people. What NewsGuard tries to do is kind of help separate that out; the accuracy of headlines, including those that are click-bait headlines and the degree of disclosure of the website's owner.
If you are reading something and you want to know who owns it, is it owned by your next-door neighbor? Is it owned by an American company? Is it owned by a Chinese company? Is it owned by a foreign national? It discloses all those kinds of things.
I am the daughter of a librarian. I am not about censorship, but I am about people being able to sort out in this day and age what is opinion, what is fact, and who is writing what, so we know what their bias is.
That is why I strongly oppose this amendment and believe that NewsGuard is a service that provides some tools to counter misinformation, and they have been around since 2018.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I would love to see the source for NewsGuard working directly with the World Health Organization.
They might report things from the World Health Organization, but that is different than working directly with them because that implies something else.
I am going to close this up just saying there are many people, when they are sorting through something, that just want to know that there is a fact-checker.
I am sorry if the gentleman, Mr. Chair, feels that somehow or another, some of the papers or the websites or the news programs he wants to watch don't have as high a rating from NewsGuard. He is still free to watch and do that.
For people who just want to make sure that things are fact-checked, they want to know who owns the site, who is operating the site, where they are getting their sources and cites from, that is what NewsGuard's function is.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. The Department took bold and effective action to confront the COVID-19 pandemic, protect our personnel across the force, and ensure that the U.S. military can fight and win wherever they are needed.
In fact, the Department of Defense lost 96 servicemembers to COVID. There were 96 servicemembers that died from COVID. More than 2 million servicemembers have been vaccinated against COVID-19.
All the servicemembers in the Department of Defense are required to comply with applicable medical readiness requirements. One such requirement is when you go to boot camp--and a lot of us have seen the movies and know people who have served--all servicemembers must receive, if they have not already, inoculations and immunizations. They usually are the same ones that we have had as children. They just want to make sure they are up-to-date because you have to get your tetanus redone and things like that that are required.
These vaccinations also include measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, and chicken pox. In some cases, service personnel are required to take certain medications if they are deployed to an area, for example, to prevent malaria or maybe yellow fever. That is to make sure that they are safe.
Applicants for military service and servicemembers may seek an exemption--that has always been available to them and it continues to be available to them. They can seek an exemption for vaccine requirements based on qualifying medical or religious--so they can ask for that, and they are often granted it.
Members of Congress should not be directing or deciding what vaccines or medications are needed for our military personnel.
Madam Chair, I would ask my colleagues to take a second and for you to come along with me. Just imagine you are on a submarine. My father- in-law served on a submarine in World War II, and he would tell me how close those quarters are. I have been on a submarine, so I know how close they are. There is no place for total privacy and germs are all over.
Just think what would happen if there was a COVID-19 outbreak, how that could possibly affect national security. All of our service personnel are in close quarters with one another. We must try to protect them from any disease that could inhibit their ability to execute that mission.
At this point there are no COVID vaccine requirements. There aren't for any members of the total force. There aren't any requirements pending for this right now. The Department of Defense says, no, you don't have to get this one, there are other ones you have to get.
Madam Chair, since there are no COVID-19 vaccine requirements pending, I don't know why we are debating this amendment. For this reason, I would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, at some point I would like the gentleman from Montana to show me his statistics. We might have had 60,000 people who chose not to re-up. To attribute it all to COVID, I would like to see that information. I am sure Chair Calvert would like to see that information because that would be important to see. That is a statistic I would like to see where it came from.
Madam Chair, I will state again that the COVID-19 vaccine currently isn't required, but to ban it in such a blanket way in which we are doing, takes away some of the ability for the Department. You volunteer to be on a submarine. It takes away some of the flexibility that the Department or commander or someone in the height of a pandemic--should it come again--they should have every tool in their toolbox. Right now there is no current reason for it.
Madam Chair, I am like you, talking to friends and neighbors. Some are deciding to get it, some are deciding not to get it, just like people do with the flu shot. There are certain times that the Department of Defense says you need to take these certain medications.
The gentleman from Montana listed off a lot of them. We have had them. Our kids have had them. Our servicemembers have them. COVID-19 isn't on a list right now of anything that is being required. This seems to me to be superfluous and kind of creates more friction and anxiousness about how we talk about medicine that is being provided. This is medicine that should be optional.
Is this an option that would be available if a servicemember going in said, hey, I want to get the COVID vaccine? I want to have it, and I would like the Department of Defense to provide it to me.
I really think we should leave it up to the medical professionals at the Department of Defense to say what is necessary. Right now they are saying this isn't a mandated vaccine.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source