The House Appropriations Committee on Thursday voted 34-25 along party lines to advance its $833.1 billion fiscal year 2025 defense spending bill, which followed debate on the lack of Ukraine aid in the legislation and Democrats’ objection to the inclusion of GOP-proposed “partisan social policy riders.”
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), the House’s top defense appropriator, opened HAC’s markup addressing the limitations imposed by the one percent spending cap from last year’s Fiscal Responsibility Act
and defending the decision not to include funding for procurement of a second Virginia-class submarine.
“I’ve heard concerns about the allocation with people questioning whether it’s both too low or too high. I’ve made my opinion clear that it’s too low,” Calvert, chair of the House Appropriations Defense (HAC-D) Subcommittee, said in his opening remarks. “Despite the challenge posed by the topline, this bill effectively resources a capable, lethal and ready military.”
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on HAC-D, opened her remarks stating that the defense spending bill is unlikely to become law as written if it contains the slew of conservative GOP-led policy riders, ranging from blocking funds for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs to defunding climate-related policies at DoD.
“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,” McCollum said. “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 FY ‘25.”
HAC-D released its FY ‘25 spending bill last week, which funds $294.3 billion for operations and maintenance, a $2 billion cut to the budget request, $165.3 billion for procurement, $1.4 billion below the request, and $145.9 billion for research and development, an increase of $2.7 billion from the budget submission (Defense Daily, June 4).
Calvert pointed to rising costs with DoD’s “must pay bills,” to include the price of fuel increasing to $21 a barrel, as potentially causing procurement and research and development accounts to “get crowded out absent a topline increase.”
“Democrats will accept nothing less than a one percent increase over 2024 in defense and nondefense funding. That is what the law provides for. And any increase for defense beyond one percent must be matched dollar for dollar in nondefense investments,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the HAC ranking member, said on Thursday.
DeLauro’s comments echo previous remarks from Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who has insisted that any defense topline boost be paired with an increase for non-defense spending (Defense Daily, May 8).
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said he plans to introduce an amendment during his panel’s consideration of the FY ‘25 National Defense Authorization Act to boost the topline by $55 billion (Defense Daily, June 5).
The HAC-D chair also noted the bill includes $18 billion cuts from the Biden administration’s budget request, which allowed the panel to shift funds around and allow for certain increases, to include boosting F-35 procurement by eight aircraft.
“Many of these reductions are due to schedule delays, unjustified cost increases, under-execution or other programmatic adjustments. But in many cases, the department did not provide clear and adequate justification and we will not be giving out blank checks,” Calvert said on Thursday. “In short, this bill procures where we can, trains where we must and invests in capability that will make Chinese leaders wake up every day and say, ‘Today is not the day to provoke the United States of America.’”
Calvert on Thursday said HAC-D’s decision not fund a second Virginia-class submarine in the bill, unlike the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the NDAA, “reflects the hard choices made in this process.”
The reason the bill doesn’t fund a second submarine is very simple, the contractors can’t build it. There are significant problems with the submarine industrial base that cannot be resolved with symbolic money,” Calvert said. “I’m a staunch supporter of submarines. I know the critical asymmetric advantage they provide our military. If they could be built, I would absolutely fund them.”
HAC’s defense spending bill includes a “smart investment” of $4 billion in the submarine industrial base, Calvert added, which is in addition to the $3 billion included in the recently passed supplemental and $1.2 billion provided in the FY ‘24 defense appropriation bill.
McCollum on Thursday offered an amendment that would remove all GOP-proposed policy provisions in the bill, specifically 24 measures covering a ban on funding on the following issues: reproductive healthcare, LGBT matters, DEI programs, climate change-related programs, COVID prevention and matters related to misinformation.
“Yet again, harmful poison pill riders were attached to this bill that all but guarantees unified Democratic opposition and that all of these riders are going to be stricken from the bill just like they were [in the FY ‘24 appropriations bill] two months ago,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in support of McCollum’s amendment.
Ultimately, HAC voted 24-33 against adopting McCollum’s amendment.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) also offered an amendment that would have added in the Biden administration’s request for $300 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which is used to procure weapons aid to be transferred to Kyiv.
“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,” McCollum said in support of Quigley’s measure.
HAC voted down the Ukraine aid amendment with a 25-32 vote, and Calvert noted his “reluctant opposition” to the measure after having voted for the recent supplemental to continue aid to Ukraine amid its ongoing fight against Russia’s invasion.
“I support Ukraine but this $300 million is not needed at this time. Obviously…we have funding needs within the bill, so I don’t believe that’s necessary and I oppose this amendment,” Calvert said.