Ranking Member McCollum Floor Remarks on Republicans’ 2025 Defense Funding Bill

Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN-04), Ranking Member of the Defense Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks on the House Floor in opposition to the fiscal year 2025 Defense bill:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8774, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2025.

But I do want to begin by recognizing the work of the staff. Jennifer Chartrand and Jason Gray 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 also want to thank Chairman Calvert for his leadership of the Subcommittee – and his friendship. And I want to recognize three Members in particular for whom this will be their last Defense bill. Chairwoman Kay Granger – the first woman to lead this Subcommittee. And on my side of the aisle – Dutch Ruppersburger, and Derek Kilmer – you will both be missed. Thank you for your years of work on our subcommittee, and your 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, and 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 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 FY 2024 House proposal.

Once again, this bill includes partisan social policy riders that led to Continuing Resolutions spanning over five months of this fiscal year. All these riders were just rejected in the FY 24 conference agreement we passed in March.

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 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.

And if that’s not enough, there are provisions in this bill that are simply outside the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee.

That includes prohibiting funding 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 of one man and one woman.

These provisions – and some amendments yet to be considered – are not germane to the Defense bill. And this Subcommittee must stop wasting valuable time on issues outside of our jurisdiction.

Because our national security cannot afford to waste another five months as we did last year.

These provisions, again, only create division in the Congress – which will impact our Armed Forces.

I will address a few of them today.

Once again, this bill prohibits the Department of Defense's policy to ensure that service members 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 that would have struck this outrageous provision from the bill. We know that the Department's policy is legal under Federal law.

The Department of Justice has concluded that fact – and they state: “The Department of Defense may lawfully expend funds to pay for service members and their dependents to travel to obtain abortions that DOD cannot itself perform due to statutory requirements.”

And that statutory requirement is the Hyde Amendment. To be clear, I do not support the Hyde amendment.

But like last year, I think it is important to address it - and for Americans to understand what the prohibition in this bill does to services that are legal under the Hyde Amendment. Hyde 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.

Eighteen states have enacted total or six-week abortion bans. Some of these states do not have an exception for rape or incest. So, this bill interprets the Hyde amendment in a way that was never intended.

If your assigned duty station is in one of these states - you have no access to those Hyde amendment exceptions. And you must travel for the health care you are entitled to.

Living in those eighteen states are 80,000 women service members. And 170,000 spouses. That is 250,000 women in military communities without access to reproductive health care. This language is a de facto national abortion ban for women serving in the military.

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.

I wish the majority had the courage to bring my amendment to the floor. Our service members and their families deserve that debate.

Once again, there are provisions in this bill 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. There are approximately 79,000 LGBTQ+ Americans serving in our armed forces.

Yet again, there are provisions included in this bill that needlessly attack diversity and inclusion efforts at the Department. Our military is the only institution in our country that most broadly reflects the entire American population. That includes over a third of active-duty service members who identify with a minority group.

We know we are facing recruitment challenges in the Services. But we did hear from the Army and Navy this year that they are seeing improvements in their recruiting numbers. That is great news.

So why would this Congress want to include provisions that might dissuade any American, regardless of background, from taking the oath of service?

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 a typhoon last year. With all the military construction funding going into Guam, the evidence of infrastructure vulnerability on the island is even more clear.

And Alaska continues to experience melting permafrost, which damages runways and radar stations across the state. We are spending sustainment and research dollars to protect these installations. 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 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 Ukrainians repel Putin’s invasion. We know this bill should include the long-term assistance that Ukraine needs – and this funding has been in the base bill since 2016.

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.

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.

Just look at what Russia did when they invaded Ukraine. Russia used social media to spread harmful lies about non-existent Ukrainian and American chemical and biological weapons programs.

None of it was true – they did not exist.

What is true - is that Russia has the active chemical weapons program. And they are in violation of international obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. But 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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

###