Ranking Member McCollum Statement at the Full Committee Markup of the 2025 Defense Funding Bill

Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN-04), Ranking Member of the Defense Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks at the Appropriations Committee's markup of the fiscal year 2025 Defense bill:

Thank you, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Chairman Calvert.

I want to begin by recognizing the work of the staff: Jennifer Chartrand, Jason Gray and Farouk Ophaso on the minority side; Ben Peterson and my Defense Fellow Patrick Carr in my personal office.

Johnnie Kaberle, and the majority staff, thank you for your hard work – I know it was a very short turnaround between finishing fiscal year 2024 and starting 2025.

I want to thank two members of our Subcommittee on the minority side for whom this will be their last Defense Full Committee markup.

Mr. Ruppersburger and Mr. Kilmer, thank you both for your years of service in Congress, your contributions to this Subcommittee, and your commitment to our national security.

And I want to pay tribute Ms. Granger for her work leading this Committee, and particularly for her service as former Chairwoman - and the first woman to lead the Defense Subcommittee. We will all miss you next Congress.

Turning to the bill before us.

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, and how it will impact our military’s readiness and unit cohesion.

I was fortunate last weekend to attend the 80th anniversary of D-Day. Events like those give one pause to consider the sacrifices of the many men and women who defended freedom and democracy against fascism in World War II.

The heroism of the Army Rangers, and the men of Pointe do Hoc who took the beaches and cliffs at D-Day were honored at the memorial events last weekend. But beyond the D-Day anniversary, we must remember that Americans with diverse backgrounds from across the United States – united to serve a greater good. And their stories deserve to be told too.

The “Go for Broke” 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the Buffalo Soldiers of the 92nd infantry, The Fifth Army in North Africa, the Tuskegee Airmen, the Navaho Code Talkers, the Flying Tigers. We honor their service and sacrifice. And we continue to be the beneficiaries of the democratic system they fought to defend.

To honor this sacrifice, we need to foster a climate in our military that appreciates and supports all Americans who take the oath to serve.

Unfortunately, at this time, this bill does not reflect that sentiment.

In a 1948 speech to the British House of Commons, Winston Churchill said “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The Fiscal Year 2025 Department of Defense Appropriations bill presented to us today repeats the same mistakes as the FY 2024 House proposal.

Once again, this bill includes partisan social policy riders that were just rejected in the FY24 conference agreement. And the inclusion of those riders in the process last year, led to Continuing Resolutions that spanned over five months into fiscal year.

Mr. Chairman, of those present, 73 percent of the majority members supported the FY24 conference agreement.

We all understand that we are in a new geopolitical era, where our nation faces grave threats – and they must be responded to swiftly. But including riders that the majority knows will not become law, will only serve to repeat a process that very nearly ended in a full year Continuing Resolution. Our national security cannot afford to waste another five months as we did previously.

These provisions, again, only create division in our committee and in the Congress - which will impact our Armed Forces. Once again, the bill limits the ability of service personnel and their families to receive the reproductive health care they deserve. I would remind my colleagues that women make up almost 20 percent of the military services.  

And approximately 80,000 women service members live in a state that has limited or banned access to reproductive health care. Just like men, women service members do not get to choose where they are stationed – and their duty station should not determine the type of health care they receive.

Once again, there are provisions that disenfranchise lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender service members rather than making our military a welcoming and inclusive place for all those who wish to serve our country. And six percent of military personnel identify as LGBTQ+.

Yet again, there are provisions included in this bill that needlessly attack diversity and inclusion efforts at the Department. Our military is the institution in our country that most broadly reflects the entire American population.

That includes the 33 percent of active-duty service members who identify with a minority group.

We know we have had recruitment challenges in the services.

But we also heard from the Army this Spring that they are seeing improvements in their recruiting numbers. And that is great news.

So why would this Committee want to include provisions that might dissuade any American, regardless of background, from taking the oath of service – and offering to put their life on the line for all of us.

Beyond contentious social policy, there are other elements of this bill that I cannot support.

First, the bill continues to treat climate change as if it is not happening and is not a national security threat – which we know for a fact that it is. And we’ve seen the impact of severe weather events on installations year after year – look to Guam as a recent example. Over $50 billion in repairs will be needed for the installations on Guam which were damaged by the typhoon last year.

With all the military construction funding going into Guam, the evidence of infrastructure vulnerability on the island is even more clear. A new study from the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology reports that here in the continental United States “Tornado Alley” is shifting from the Plains to the Southeast and Mississippi River Valley.

This is exactly where many of our military installations are – right in this high-risk area. Cutting climate programs harms resiliency, and we will pay for it on the back end.

Second, the bill cuts the funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. I just met with President Zelenskyy last weekend in France. 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 signals that the West stands with them in their fight for their own self-determination. And it is the assistance that will continue to enhance the Ukrainian military’s ability to work with NATO forces.

But failure to continue funding what has been a long-standing, bipartisan initiative to support Ukraine sends a terrible signal. It will only embolden Putin.

And why in heaven’s name would any of us on this committee want to give Putin an advantage?

Third, the bill again limits the ability for our government to address disinformation. Our foreign adversaries use social media to spread disinformation here at home in the United States. This bill deprives the Department of their responsibility to set facts straight. This is dangerous, and it would have real national security implications here at home and abroad.

Fourth, the bill includes a new provision that would ban funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. This provision is not germane to this bill, and the Department of Defense has never funded UNRWA. So why is this provision here?

Let me be clear – I think the Hamas terrorist attacks of last October were barbaric.

And I am deeply alarmed at the suffering of the civilian population in Gaza – where famine has taken hold. But to be clear - UNRWA funding has never been included in this bill.

And the Defense Subcommittee needs to stop a pattern of including new general provisions that do not fall within our jurisdiction.

Finally, I want to say something about the need to make comprehensive investments in quality of life for our service members. The total compensation package for a newly enlisted soldier entering the military is approximately fifty thousand dollars. This includes basic pay, health care, dental care, housing, food, paid leave, and certain tax advantages. So what does this mean?

In a private sector job, you might be making $20 an hour. But it would not include health care and leave. And of course it would not include food and rent. The private sector simply does not provide the same holistic package of pay and benefits that the military does.

We take care of our troops – and of course there is always more we can do. I want to be abundantly clear – I am supportive of pay raises for the troops.

For example, over the last 3 years they have received: a 4.6 percent pay raise in 2023, a 5.2 percent pay raise in 2024, and the President has again proposed a 4.5 percent pay raise for 2025 which this bill supports. But on top of this – the majority is proposing an additional 15 percent pay increase for junior enlisted service members.

This poses two problems that the Committee must consider as this bill moves forward.

First, the majority fails to fully fund the pay raise proposal. The bill falls nearly $800 million short of the known $3.2 billion cost. I’ll say it again – nearly $800 million short.

By not fully funding this proposal – it causes a hole in the Services’ budgets. And the Services will be forced to fill that hole themselves by making cuts elsewhere. Where will those cuts come from? From the upkeep and restoration of barracks? From support for childcare? From the Service modernization priorities? We don’t know what is going to be sacrificed – and that’s a problem.

Second, it creates a disparity where pay raise does not follow promotion. Imagine, you have leadership potential – and you have been promoted to Sergeant. The Army is going to want to do everything in its power to retain you.

But under this proposal that promotion will not come with the same associated pay bump as your previous rank. You may decide to take your talents elsewhere – creating a retention issue.

With the best of intentions, we could be creating new problems for the Services – and quite frankly for ourselves in future fiscal years. And that is why the Committee needs to see the Administration’s Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation – which is expected at the end of this year. Because we don’t have all the information yet. We need that full report in order to make an informed and responsible decision.

That report will help us hold the Department accountable, as we work to provide a better, holistic package of pay and benefits for our troops. And that includes determining what Cost of Living Adjustments are required to meet the needs of our personnel.

But I look forward to working with the majority to ensure that we do this in a way that balances pay, benefits, and the other important programs in this bill that ensure our national security.

Mr. Chairman, 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. Every member in this room knows what needs to happen for this bill to become law.

The partisan riders need to come out so the bill can get bipartisan support. It was deeply unfortunate we had to waste half of Fiscal Year 2024 to learn that lesson. Let’s take Churchill’s advice – learn from history – and not repeat the mistake in FY25.

I yield back.

###