Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2025
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. 8774, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2025, but I want to start by recognizing the outstanding work of the staff: Jennifer Chartrand and Jason Gray on the minority side here with me, Ben Peterson and my Defense fellow, Patrick Carr, in my personal office. I also acknowledge the great work of the majority staff, with a big shout-out to Johnnie Kaberle. I thank them for their hard work.
I thank Chairman Calvert as well for his leadership on the subcommittee and for his warm friendship.
I recognize three Members particularly because this will be their last Defense bill. First and foremost is Chairwoman Kay Granger, the very first woman to lead this subcommittee, and on my side of the aisle are Dutch Ruppersberger and Derek Kilmer. We will miss them greatly. I thank each and every one of them for their years of work on our subcommittee and for their commitment to America's national security.
Turning to the bill, the fiscal year 2025 Defense Appropriations Act totals $833 billion, slightly over President Biden's budget request. I appreciate that the bill conforms to the Fiscal Responsibility Act, however, I do have deep concerns with this bill on how it will impact our military's readiness and unit cohesion.
To honor the sacrifice of those who have fought for freedom, we need to foster a climate in our military that appreciates and supports all Americans who choose to take the oath to serve. Unfortunately, at this time, this bill does not reflect that sentiment.
In 1948, in a speech to the British House of Commons, Winston Churchill said: ``Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.''
The bill before us repeats the same mistakes as the FY24 House proposal. Once again, this bill includes partisan social riders that led to continuing resolutions spanning over 5 months of this fiscal year. All these riders were just rejected in the FY24 conference committee agreement we passed in March.
Now, we all understand we are in a new geopolitical era where our Nation faces grave threats that we must respond to swiftly, but once again, the majority has included riders that they know will not become law. This will only serve to repeat a process that nearly ended in a full-year continuing resolution.
If that is not enough, there are provisions in this bill that are simply outside the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee. That includes prohibiting funds for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, an organization the Department of Defense has never funded, or a provision related to the IRS tax treatment of individuals who hold a belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman only.
These provisions, and some of the amendments yet to be considered, are just not germane to this bill. This subcommittee, I believe, must stop wasting valuable time on issues outside of our jurisdiction because our national security cannot afford to waste another 5 months as we did last year.
These provisions, again, only create division in Congress, which will impact our Armed Forces. I will address a few of them.
This bill, once again, 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.
I am extremely disappointed that the Rules Committee failed to make my amendment in order, which would have struck down this outrageous provision from the bill. We know that the Department's policy is legal under Federal law. The Justice Department has concluded that fact. In fact, the Department of Justice stated: ``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.''
The statutory requirement that they are talking about is the Hyde amendment, Mr. Chair.
To be clear, I do not support the Hyde amendment. Like last year, I think it is important to address it and for America to understand what the provision in this bill does to the services that would be legally provided under the Hyde amendment.
Hyde prohibits the DOD from using funds or facilities to perform abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.
Eighteen States have enacted total or 6-week abortion bans. Some of these States do not even have an exception for rape or for incest. This bill interprets the Hyde amendment in a way that it was never intended.
If your assigned duty station is one of these 18 States, you have no access to the Hyde amendment exceptions. You must travel for your healthcare, and you are entitled to do that.
Those living in the 18 States comprise 80,000 servicewomen and 170,000 spouses. That is a total of 250,000 women in military communities without access to reproductive healthcare.
This language is a de facto national abortion ban for women who serve alongside and in the military. Women will exit the force because of this. Husbands and fathers will not want to serve in States where their families could be negatively impacted.
I only wish the majority would have had the courage to bring my amendment to the floor. Our servicemembers and their families deserve that debate.
Once again, there are provisions in this bill that disenfranchise lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender servicemembers, rather than making our military a welcoming and inclusive place for all of those who wish to serve this country. There are approximately 79,000 LGBTQ+ Americans that serve in our Armed Forces, yet these provisions included in this bill needlessly attack the inclusion efforts and the diversity efforts by the Department.
Our military is the only institution in our country that most broadly reflects the entire American population, and that includes over one- third of Active-Duty servicemembers who identify with a minority group.
We know we are facing recruitment challenges in the service, but we did hear from the Army and the Navy this year that they are seeing improvements in their recruitment numbers. That is great news. Why would this Congress want to include provisions that might dissuade any American, regardless of their background, from taking the oath of service?
Beyond the contentious social policies, there are other elements of this bill I cannot support. First, the bill continues to treat climate change as if it is not happening and it is not a national security threat. We know for a fact that it is.
We have seen the impacts of severe weather events on installations year after year. Just look at Guam as a recent example. Over $50 billion in repairs will be needed for the installations on Guam which were damaged by a typhoon last year. With all of the military construction funding going to Guam, the infrastructure vulnerability on this island is very clear, and we must address it.
Then there is Alaska. Alaska continues to experience melting permafrost, which damages runways and radar stations all across the State.
We are spending sustainment and research dollars to protect these installations in the best way we can. By cutting climate programs, we harm resiliency, and, Mr. Chair, we are going to pay for it on the back end.
Second, the bill cuts the security funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. I recently met with President Zelenskyy, and he expressed how grateful the Ukrainian people were that the United States had finally delivered additional ammunition to help Ukraine repel Putin's invasion.
We know this bill should include the long-term assistance that Ukraine needs. This funding has been in the base bill, in fact, since 2016. The funding that we put in the base bill signals that the West stands with them in their fight for their own self-determination. It is assistance that will continue to enhance Ukraine's military ability to work with NATO forces.
Failure to continue funding that has been a longstanding, bipartisan initiative to support Ukraine sends a terrible signal that will only embolden Putin.
Third, the bill again limits the ability of our government to address disinformation. Our foreign adversaries use social media to spread disinformation here at home in the United States.
Just look at what Russia did leading up to the invasion in Ukraine. Russia used social media to spread harmful lies about nonexistent Ukrainian-American chemical and biological weapons programs. None of it was true. None of it existed.
What was true is that Russia had an active chemical weapons program of their own. They were in violation of the international obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
This bill deprives the Department of their responsibility to set the facts straight. It would let bad actors like Russia continue to spread disinformation unchallenged, and that is downright dangerous.
Mr. Chair, regrettably, at this time I will be unable to vote for passage of this bill, and I cannot recommend to my colleagues that they support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, who is a great mentor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, may I inquire if the majority has additional speakers.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the fiscal year 2024 appropriations process was plagued by continuing resolutions and a wasted 5 months of this fiscal year.
I know Chairman Cole and Chairman Calvert agree with me that we live in an increasingly dangerous world, and I look forward to working with Chairman Calvert to improve this bill.
We know how this process ends. The partisan riders will come out, just like they did in 2024. We have a blueprint on how to write these bills, and I am ready to get this appropriations process back on track and not waste time as we did last year.
Let's give our servicemembers and their families the bipartisan Defense bill they deserve.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I also support this amendment. As was stated, it contains a series of bipartisan amendments that are supported by Members on both sides.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment.
As with the other one, it contains a series of bipartisan amendments that are supported by Members on both sides.
Mr. Chair, I encourage the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, once again, I support this amendment. It contains a series of bipartisan amendments that are supported by Members on both sides. I encourage adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. It contains, once again, bipartisan amendments that Members on both sides have agreed to.
Mr. Chair, we encourage the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. As with all the others, it contains a series of bipartisan amendments with the support of Members on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman of the full committee for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I am very disappointed by these types of amendments that have been offered today. Secretary Austin has dedicated his life to the service of the United States with over 41 years in the Army, rising to the rank of four-star general. I could go on with his accomplishments.
This is a man who is a patriot for our country, certainly someone who has not betrayed the American people.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for the time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter dated November 1, 2023, and it is signed by some distinguished Members of this body: Roger Wicker, Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; James E. Risch, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Chairman Mike Rogers, Armed Services Committee; and Chairman McCaul of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, November 1, 2023. President Joseph R. Biden, The White House, Washington, D.C.
Dear President Biden: We welcome reports that your administration has finally provided some limited range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to Ukraine. We remain concerned that the transfers of these shorter-range ATACMS occurred more than a year after Ukraine's public request for this capability, and we believe it demonstrates that your administration's reticence toward arming Ukraine continues.
Although this transfer is a positive step, the job on ATACMS is only half-done: the United States has only provided a small number of the Anti-Personnel/Anti-Materiel (APAM) variant of ATACMS and these have a shorter range. We urge you to provide the unitary warhead variant of ATACMS which has a substantially longer range than the APAMS. In addition, we call on you to deliver the balance of U.S. APAMs given the Department of Defense's repeated inability to articulate a clear, current requirement for this weapon.
Ukraine's requirement for deep-strike capability remains urgent, particularly to range targets throughout Crimea. Recent successful strikes on Russian targets in Crimea, including on Black Sea Fleet assets, demonstrate the strategic significance of long-range strike options and the relevance of the longer range ATACMS. It is a sad reflection that Ukraine had to rely, in part, on long-range missiles provided by allies to reach these targets in the face of your administration's continued self-deterrence. Ukraine must have the ability to break Russia's logistics network for Ukraine's offensive operations to truly be successful.
We also regret that the administration has yet to provide Congress with the definitive status of the ATACMS inventory and warfighting requirements. We have received at least three documents from the Pentagon with substantively different numbers. Given the bipartisan congressional support for providing long-range ATACMS, we cannot understand the Department of Defense's inability to articulate ATACMS requirements.
The bottom line is this: Ukraine has requested long-range ATACMS. Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to employ long- range missiles in a responsible and effective manner. Allies have already provided Ukraine with these capabilities, and Russia has clearly declined to escalate upon usage of deep- strike missiles. The United States has an arsenal of long- range unitary warhead ATACMS, a hot production line to backfill them, and affordable and executable paths to speed up delivery of the Precision Strike Missile follow-on capability. Clearly, it is time for you to finish the job on ATACMS. The costs of failing to do so not only risks stalemate on the battlefield and the further protraction of this war, but also threatens further global instability as our adversaries conduct influence operations around the globe. Sincerely, Roger F. Wicker,
Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee. Mike Rogers,
Chairman, House Armed Services Committee. James E. Risch,
Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. The gentlewoman is certainly entitled to her own opinion, but the reason why I am entering this letter into the Record is that there are Members on her side of the aisle that strongly disagree with her original statement talking about how weapons are used. I will just read a couple highlights.
It says: ``Dear President Biden, we welcome reports that your administration has finally provided some limited range Army Tactical Missile Systems . . .''--the shorter range.
``Although this transfer is a positive step, the job on ATACMS is only half-done . . . . We urge you to provide the unitary warhead variant of ATACMS which has a substantially longer range than the APAMS.'' The ones that they are currently using.
``Ukraine's requirement for deep-strike capability remains urgent, particularly to range targets throughout Crimea.''
It goes on to say: ``Ukraine has requested long-range ATACMS. Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to employ long-range missiles in a responsible and effective manner.''
In other words, they are asking in a letter that they sent that these ATACMS be given to Ukraine, the full inventory, that they can use to do the strikes that Ukraine thinks they need to do.
I will point out, Mr. Chair, that even on the other side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, there is a difference of opinion from what the gentlewoman stated.
I will point out that the majority has already eliminated funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative in this bill, something the chairman and I disagree on in the way that it is done.
We have another amendment that will also prohibit any further support to Ukraine as they fight an illegal invasion in their country. It is just morally wrong, in my opinion.
Putin is attempting to rewrite the map of Europe, and he is doing it through force. He is doing it in violation of international law. He is deliberately killing civilians. He is attacking hospitals and daycare centers. They are targeting grocery stores. On top of that, they are kidnapping Ukrainian children, which is something that I find very disturbing.
Putin and his thugs are committing war crimes on a mass scale, and the United States and the democracies around the world must continue to strongly oppose him.
If we do not, then he and other authoritarian leaders will do something like this again, either in Ukraine or somewhere else in the world.
America is not alone in our military support for Ukraine. Our NATO and European allies have provided close to $50 billion in military assistance. We are donating tanks, air defense systems, artillery, vehicles, rockets, and infantry fighting vehicles, and the list does go on.
Let us not abandon our EU and NATO allies now. Let us not abandon Ukraine. I know there are those who express concerns about how some of the munitions are being provided to Ukraine, particularly the cluster munitions. We have an amendment to consider that deal and how to specifically work on that.
I understand the difficult position that Ukraine and President Zelenskyy have been in with respect to shortages of ammunition because of our failure to get the funding to them on time.
The Ukrainian people, Mr. Chair, did not ask for this war. They did not ask for their children to be kidnapped. They did not ask for their economy to be destroyed.
They faced daunting odds against Russian forces. They have taken up the mantle to defend themselves, their values, and their democratic principles. I believe they deserve our continued support.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I will be clear: The Russians attacked Ukraine. Ukraine decided enough is enough. They were going to stand up for their rights, for their values, for their people. We as democracies around the world have stood together with Ukraine. It is the right thing to do.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand the desire for all of us to return to a pre-COVID sense of normal work routines, but I want to be very clear. This is a total ban on telework, and it is excessive.
I work in the classified realm more than I ever thought I would since becoming a Member of Congress in my assigned duties, especially as ranking member and former chair of the Defense Committee, and I can assure you that our staff does not take classified work home and do telework from home. They don't. People don't do that. This is a total ban on telework.
I believe there are certain circumstances where telework may be necessary. Let me give you an example that hits close to home. In 2001, I had to close my office in Washington because of an anthrax scare. That was before we had laptops and were well organized.
My staff worked from home, and sometimes we worked at home together. They were able to get things done for the people that I represent, and I thank my staff for working under those extraordinary circumstances.
Now we have the technology that will allow people to work from home when it makes sense to do that. With telework, there isn't a need to shut down the government for snow days anymore. If power is available, people work from home. They keep the government going.
Additionally, the Federal Government, including the DOD, is in competition with the private sector for certain types of workers. Many private-sector jobs offer telework as an option.
Without being able to have this flexibility, we may find ourselves in a more difficult position to fill jobs and to provide services to our constituents.
Telework doesn't make sense for every single employee all the time, but options should be available to the Department to improve the quality of life for its workers when it makes sense.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this total ban on telework, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I will make another statement, and then I will yield back my time.
Let's be really clear here. This is a total ban on working from home. Now, I will state it again. I work in the classified area. The chairman and I work with people in the Intelligence Committee. I can guarantee you even in our committee when things are passed out to Members, do we not collect them back, Mr. Chair? People are not taking classified work home to telework.
If they are taking anything out of this Chamber, out of this building, or out of any of the departments where it is secure and should not leave, they should be prosecuted to the full extent because they are breaking the law.
This is a total ban on telework. We shouldn't support this amendment. We should work really hard to make sure that when telework is available, it makes sense, it delivers things for our constituents, and it makes our government run more efficiently.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment. We should all be supporting funding for national security, but should any department or agency really get an opportunity to request additional funding that is outside of the President's request by any administration's request?
Either all agencies should have the authority to do it, or none of them should. This should not be unique to the Armed Forces and the combatant commanders if it is such a good idea.
The service chiefs appear before the committee each year to discuss how their budgets meet the needs included in the national defense strategy. Most of the combatant commanders also testify annually before the committee.
Congress is able to assess with stringent oversight what we believe the country needs for its national security.
Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. If this really is such a fabulous idea that we have these unfunded opportunity lists, then we should do it for the EPA. We should do it for the National Park Service. I could think of a lot of things that the American public would like to know about, if this is such a good idea, that aren't able to be funded in the current time in the President's budget.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition.
As was pointed out, section 1260H of the FY21 NDAA requires the Secretary of Defense to maintain a list of Chinese military companies that are operating directly or indirectly in the United States and publicly report such a list. This list is required to be submitted annually until December 31, 2030. We have oversight over that, and we should exercise our oversight.
The NDAA gave the Secretary the authority to make additions and deletions to the list in subsection (b)(3). The FY25 bill already includes this provision, consistent with current law, so this has been the law since FY 2021, when the NDAA required the Secretary of Defense to maintain these lists.
The amendment would remove the Secretary's ability to modify the list, and it is an expansion of current law. If the Secretary were to modify the list, Congress would know about it, and Congress could do its oversight and due diligence if they thought there was something out of order.
Given that the bill already includes this language, and the amendment would remove the authority of the Secretary to make the necessary judgments, I oppose this amendment. This amendment, and the gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, would suppose that the Secretary would disregard the law flagrantly and not fulfill their obligation, and I believe the Secretary will, whether it is a Republican Secretary of Defense or Democratic Secretary of Defense, fulfill the law and do their work correctly. Congress sees the report, and if Congress thinks there is something amiss, we do our oversight.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I am in opposition. I have the right to close, do I not, Mr. Chair?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the gentleman who is offering the amendment is entitled to his opinions, but I do believe when we are talking about the President of the United States on the House floor, are we not supposed to refer to Mr. Biden as the President?
I see the Parliamentarian is here discussing this. I won't ask for any more time to have you answer the question because they would give you the advice on that. There have been times, Mr. Chair, when I have been in your position when things were happening, pretense before about conversations, and it was my understanding, but I will move forward.
The gentleman, as I said, is entitled to his own opinion, and his opinion is that he does not trust the President of the United States, and he does not trust the Secretary of Defense. I do. I believe that they will carry forward and uphold the law.
The gentleman did point out something about these precursor drugs that I think the gentleman, the Chair, and I agree with, and that is China needs to crack down on them more. That means we need to crack down on China, but as soon as we list one of these chemical combinations, they come up with another one, so I have been urging, along with other people in the White House, to figure out how we write this in a way that we can make sure that we capture all these chemicals that are used to murder Americans.
The last thing I would say on that, we just did the border security bill, the Homeland Security bill, and some of the technology provisions that would have allowed us to capture a lot of this at the border unfortunately were cut by the Republicans' bill that they put forward.
There is work to do. I agree. I do trust the Secretary of Defense, and I do trust the President of the United States to uphold the law of the land.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the reason why I claim the time in opposition to this amendment is because it is completely unnecessary. Of course, China does not participate in the Rim of the Pacific, or RIMPAC, as it was referred to.
RIMPAC is a tool that we use to build alliances with our allies. It is an opportunity to deter China's activities. Why would the Department of Defense invite them in? They are not going to.
This is another attempt by the majority to load up this bill with unnecessary provisions and will only delay us moving forward in conference negotiations with the Senate.
If you have a problem with the way the authorizers wrote the bill, I suggest you go to the authorizing committee, Mr. Chair. This is the Appropriations Committee. I know full well that the Department of Defense is not going to be inviting China to join us in RIMPAC.
This is unnecessary. Provisions like this just make the process take longer. It is wasting time and money. I think the gentleman is entitled to his opinions, and his opinion, once again, is he does not trust the President of the United States or the Secretary of Defense to make decisions that are not only lawful but are in the best interests of this country.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's passion on this, but this is an appropriations bill. An authorizing bill is the appropriate place to do it.
I would be happy to look at working with Mr. Ogles on the authorizing bill to take care of the issues that you care about, but I right now oppose it on this bill.
Mr. Chair, before I close, we had a previous amendment that the gentlewoman from Georgia had in which she made statements about Secretary of Defense Austin.
I follow the advice of a very wise President of the United States. I kind of trusted my memory, but I decided to verify.
I will, for the record, state that Secretary Austin did not make any statement in any way, shape, or form that U.S. men and women would be fighting in Ukraine. He did say--and I did hear him say this in some of the earlier briefings--that if we don't stop the Russian aggression in Ukraine, it will spread into NATO and it could result in the United States and NATO sons and daughters fighting--``could,'' and that is if Russia spread beyond Ukraine.
Mr. Chair, I want my colleagues to know how strongly I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source