St. Paul Reporter

Ranking Member McCollum Remarks, as prepared

Thank you, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Chairman Calvert.

I want to begin by recognizing the work of the staff. Jennifer Chartrand, Farouk Ophaso, and Jason Gray on the minority side. Ben Peterson and my Defense Fellow Michael Clark in my personal office. Johnnie Kaberle, and the majority staff, especially those that I had the pleasure of working with last Congress.

As former Chair of the subcommittee, I know how difficult this bill is. And though I cannot support the bill today, I hope you know I value all of your work.The Fiscal Year 2024 Defense Appropriations Act totals $826.4 billion, slightly over President Biden’s budget request.When I was Chair last Congress, I funded the House bills to the President’s request. I am glad to see the majority has agreed with me that the administration’s number is sufficient.

However, I do have deep concerns with this bill, and how it will impact our military’s readiness.

Let me start with the numbers.

There are $1.1 billion in cuts to civilian personnel. We know what these reductions will do to the force, because we tried something like this before.

In Fiscal Year 2013, Congress directed DoD to cut civilian personnel by $10 billion over five years.

What was the result?I’ll quote Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks:

“…the Pentagon failed to substantiate that it had achieved those savings. The reason those efforts rarely succeed is that they merely shiftthe work being done by civilians to others,such as military personnel or defense contractors.”

We didn’t save any money.We increased delays – wasting taxpayer money – in the oversight and execution of acquisition contracts, something we all should want to avoid.

There are also $714 million in cuts to climate resiliency programs, and a ban on assessing climate impacts on the Department.

In last week’s MilCon markup, I listed three severe weather events that did $10 billion in damage to military installations because we were unprepared.

One example was when Camp Lejeune had more than 900 buildings flooded, we know that readiness there was impacted.

Cutting these cost saving programs will leave installations vulnerable, waste taxpayer dollars, and leave a less ready force.

But this is the Appropriations Committee, we are supposed to disagree about numbers – and we will.But we always get our job done.Now I want to turn to my fundamental concern with this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I must be honest with you, I did not see many of these new general provisions coming – especially on the Defense bill. I was shocked when I read them, because I knew they would distract us from our task as Appropriators.

To execute our job, we need to have a laser like focus on training and equipping our troops so they can perform their duties and come home safe, and ensuring our service members and their families have their needs met at home.

And I was disappointed. Disappointed, because I fear these provisions will leave us with a force that is smaller in size and a poor reflection of the America it serves to defend.

Members, I want you to clearly understand why I feel so strongly.

Twelve days from now, we will commemorate the 247th anniversary of our independence. 

We will celebrate a nation that grew from thirteen meager colonies into the most powerful country in history.

A nation that has struggled, but always tried to live up to the promise of the values enshrined in our Constitution.To give every American a better life, and a part to play in our nation’s story.

The history of America’s military is no different.

Time and again, we have struggled through periods of political and social conflict to expand opportunities to serve to more Americans.

This year is the 75th anniversary of racial integration of the Services.In 1948, President Truman’s executive order recognized what was always true – that Black and brown Americans had served honorably in every military conflict from the Revolutionary War on. 

From the Civil War heroes of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment, to the Harlem Hellfighters of World War I,to the famous Red Tails – Black Americans have always been there serving.This is true for Americans of every race.

The war in the Pacific could not have been won without the Navajo or Sioux Nation Code Talkers.

Japanese Americans fought in the fiercest battles in Italy, despite a horrific policy that interned their families at home.

The Services took years to comply with President Truman’s order, but when they did it made our military stronger.

Truman did something else in 1948.

He signed the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act into law, allowing women to formally serve in the U.S. military.

Though a ban on serving in combat would not be lifted until 2013, this law recognized another enduring truth – that women have always stood up for our national defense.

In 1776, Margaret Corbin disguised herself as a man to serve in the Continental Army – firing her cannon even after being shotthree times at the Battle of Fort Washington.350,000 women served in uniform during World War II, from the WASPS, to the WAVES, to those in the Nursing Corps.The list goes on, and we are stronger for letting them raise a hand to serve.

In 2011, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed, a policy that forced gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans to lie about who they were in order to serve their country.

I’ll repeat a story Mr. Pocan has so kindly introduced us to:

Leonard Matlovich, an Air Force Technical Sargent was discharged in 1975 because he was gay, despite being awarded a Purple Heart and Bronze Star for service in Vietnam.

His tombstone reads:“When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men, and gave me a discharge for loving one.”Similar words won’t be added to another grave, because Americans chose acceptance and inclusion over fear.

This history is important, because this bill serves a military that was not built in one year, or five years.It stands on the shoulders of that history, a foundation strengthened by our conscious decisions to include others.In every instance, expanding opportunities for more Americans to serve has strengthened our Armed Forces.

And that speaks to the core of my concerns today.

The provisions added by the majority do not reflect the military we have today – or honor the struggle it took to build it.

These provisions divide, not unite.

And they will have harmful consequences for recruitment, retention, and readiness.

Some examples.

Our current force is nearly 20 percent women, yet there is a provision that restricts service members, civilians, and dependents from seeking basic reproductive health care.

With 80,000 women stationed in states that restrict reproductive health care access, this provision will endanger the safety and support our service members deserve.It is often said, recruit the soldier but retain the family.

This provision does neither, and the consequences will be far reaching.

Young women will refuse to raise their hand to serve.Women service members will exit the force.We will lose husbands and fathers who do not want to serve in states where their families are impacted.

Consider what will drive an individual’s decision to serve in the military.

The current DoD policy which safeguards personal choice within the bounds of federal law?

Or what the Majority proposes that removes a personal choice - especially one related to one’s health or the health of their family?Ask most women service members and the answer is clear.

Let’s talk about what it means to have a diverse force, in the spirit of the Red Tails and the Navajo Code Talkers

What message does this send to Black, brown, Asian, Latino, and Native Americans – to defund the Deputy Inspector General for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility programs? Or ban funding for all DEIA programs within DoD?

A provision bans Critical Race Theory, but the majority’s definition reads more like a ban on teaching American history that some find uncomfortable to learn.

As a former history teacher, I find it alarming that this bill seeks to determine what history the military can and cannot teach.

Should our military academies and professional military education not tell the history of slavery, or the Civil War, or of Jim Crow laws and the struggle for desegregation faced by Black service members when they returned home from war?

We cannot celebrate how far our military has come if we don’t know where it came from.The Department of Defense is about to be led by two Black Americans for the first time in history.

That speaks to where building a diverse force can take us, let’s not reverse course now.

There are provisions in this bill that are offensive to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans – and will impact who serves.The ban on gender affirming care will without question drive transgender service members out of the military.And I question why a provision on the IRS tax treatment of individuals who hold a belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman is in this legislation. Not only is this not germane to the Defense Appropriations Act, it is needlessly divisive.

The message this provision sends to gay and lesbian Americans, many of whom are married, is painful.

Whether intentional or not, words matter – and these ones will discourage service.

I also want to register concerns with two provisions that impact speech.

One bans the use of funds to classify any communications by a U.S. person as “mis, dis, or mal-information.”Our foreign adversaries use social media to spread disinformation here at home.Depriving the Department of the responsibility to set facts straight is dangerous.

Is it the role of this committee to ban individuals from having security clearances for signing their name to a letter – expressing their opinions as ordained in the Constitution?

Section 8150 does just that.If we want to take this committee down a road of punitive action, I have plenty of members of the Trump administration who I think should never hold security clearances again based on their actions surrounding January 6th.

This is a Pandora’s Box. Do not open it.

I want to close with this.Some of you may know the Four Chaplains story from World War II. On February 3rd, 1943, an American troop transport was torpedoed and sank in one of the worst losses at sea for our nation.

On board were four chaplains of different faiths.

Lt. George Fox, a Methodist Minister.Lt. John Washington, a Catholic Priest.Lt. Alexander Goode, a Reform Rabbi.and Lt. Clark Poling, a Dutch Reformed Minister

When the ship was struck, not only did these four men assist in the evacuation, they gave up their life jackets so that others might live. They stayed on board with those soldiers who were unable to leave. Differences in religious affiliation, denomination, or faith, it did not matter.They stayed to comfort each other as Americans, and they sacrificed their lives for one another – as Americans.

We need to do a better job of heeding that example in Congress, and we need to do a better job on this Committee.

Because we do face unprecedented national security threats, together – as Americans. Chairman Calvert and I agree on that.Russia is committing war crimes on a mass scale in Ukraine. In the Pacific, we must deter what would be a catastrophic war with the People’s Republic of China. We need to work together with our allies to protect democracy around the world.

So, we cannot afford to have any young American who wants to serve feel that they are not wanted.

We cannot afford to lose an Active Duty or Reserve member because of the riders in this bill.

After today, I hope we can work in a bipartisan fashion, eliminate the riders that have no business here, and produce a Defense Appropriations bill that we can all support.

One that lives up to the sacrifice of the four chaplains, who put a higher calling above all else, respect – kindness – and treating others with dignity.Our service members and their families deserve nothing less.

I yield back.

Original source can be found here.