A former congresswoman who led a commission to review the U.S. defense strategy blasted stopgap funding measures on Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2024, as “catastrophic to national security” just hours before an expected House vote on a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through March. (Gianna Gronowski/Stars and Stripes)
A former congresswoman who led a commission to review the U.S. defense strategy blasted stopgap funding measures on Wednesday as “catastrophic to national security” just hours before an expected House vote on a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through March.
“We … implore the 59 members of this committee to work with your colleagues to stop relying on continuing resolutions and let the government function,” Jane Harman, the chairwoman of the National Defense Strategy Commission who served nine terms in Congress, told the House Armed Services Committee. “You understand the harm that these CRs do, and how they cause the United States to fall behind our adversaries.”
The hearing came as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., prepared for a vote Wednesday evening on his six-month continuing resolution bill that would fund the federal government at fiscal 2024 levels through March, giving time to appropriators to pass a full budget for the second half of fiscal 2025, which starts Oct. 1. That plan appeared unlikely to pass early Tuesday. Congress must pass a budget or continuing resolution by Sept. 30 to avoid a government shutdown.
Harman, a Democrat from California, testified Wednesday before the House committee about the commission’s scathing 132-page report published in July. The panel’s review of the 2022 National Defense Strategy criticized the Pentagon’s key planning document as “woefully out of date,” given the dramatic changes around the world since its release — including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the war in Gaza launched by Israel in response to a surprise attack by Hamas militants. The report concluded the U.S. military was underfunded, too small, and ill-prepared to face a multi-theater or global war, which the committee determined was more likely now than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
“There is potential for near-term war,” said the commission’s vice chairman, Eric Edelman, a former U.S. ambassador and Pentagon policy chief under Republican presidents. “And potential that we might lose such a conflict.”
Harman and Edelman warned China was outpacing the U.S. on the most modern military weapons, including hypersonic missiles and the most modern nuclear weapons. They also warned of the growing ties between authoritarian powers including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, which could work together to draw the United States into a multifront conflict.
They argued the United States must drastically increase national security spending to 3% to 5% annually above inflation to outpace China and Russia, a rate increase rarely seen in recent years as the Pentagon budgets dipped below inflation rates. Maintaining a powerful military with the latest technology is costly, the commission noted, but it’s necessary to keep potential adversaries from testing U.S. military capabilities.
“Conflict is always more expensive than deterrence,” Edelman said. “That’s a lesson we’ve learned over and over again from history… If you want peace, prepare for war, and that remains a maxim that would serve us well.”
In addition to larger budgets, which the commission said could be funded through higher taxes and entitlement reforms, the military needs on-time federal budgets to ensure its troops can train and new weapons programs can move forward.
The Pentagon has long balked at the use of stopgap funding measures, which Congress has passed to begin new fiscal years in 15 of the last 16 years. In 2024, Congress did not pass a full Pentagon budget until late March.
In a letter to Congress this month, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin wrote a six-month continuing resolution would cost the Pentagon more than $6 billion compared to his 2025 spending proposal, and it would stall some $4.3 billion in research projects and delay some $10 billion in expected military construction projects.
The Navy said this week a six-month continuing resolution would cause delays to its Virginia-class, fast-attack submarine program and its forthcoming Columbia-class, ballistic-missile submarines, which have already been hampered by past budget shortfalls and stopgap funding measures. The other military services, too, would see pauses or delays in new weapons programs, Pentagon officials said.
Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., urged his colleagues to vote against the temporary spending proposal on Wednesday, saying it would “be devastating to the Defense Department.”
“That’s basically saying we’re not going to increase the budget by a penny for six months,” said Smith, the top Democrat on the committee. “We’re going to tie their hands so that they have to keep spending money on what they spent it on last year, and they can’t spend money on new programs. Anyone who cares about national security should vote against the CR today, and I really want to emphasize that.”
Smith and several Republicans agreed with the commission that the Pentagon needs more money to deter China and Russia. Smith said, in part, the Pentagon needs Congress to allow it to spend more money on newer, more capable weapons and technology and move on from older platforms that might not be useful in future conflicts, which the commission also recommended.
The commission declined to specify which aging platforms should be retired in favor of newer, software-based technology.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., the committee chairman, said the American public needs to better understand the kind of threat U.S. adversaries pose to American power, so they can stomach the money the U.S. military needs to avert conflict.
“Everyone needs to understand that sustaining American deterrence against our adversaries, especially against China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, will be very expensive,” he said. “But they also need to understand that if we fail, the price will be catastrophic.”
