Opinion: Lawmakers must remember the mission when they consider military appropriations

As the U.S. House rapidly approaches its planned August recess , members have some positive activity to report back to their constituents: development of defense policy and funding bills that contain elements of what the nation’s fighting force needs.

Whether all this productive activity turns into an accomplishment — that is, actual on-time enactment of the bills — is another matter.

As most of the underlying disagreements in play on programs for diversity, climate and social policies have little to do with military capability , we should focus on what is at stake for the nation’s security in these bills. This includes authorizing and appropriating sufficient levels of defense spending; addressing vital challenges of industrial base capacity and supply chain resilience; increasing responsiveness to innovation; and focusing on the core function of providing for both military capacity and capability.

By adhering to the budget caps in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, both bills fail to provide the defense top-line necessary for the military structure and capability that the nation needs. The defense core military mission and the force size to protect America, maintain operational readiness, deter aggression and remain engaged globally need more attention and resources to meet even the outdated National Defense Strategy under which the nation currently functions.

As summarized in our recent paper on the House fiscal 2025 bills, in adding funds to the research, development, test and evaluation lines compared to the president’s budget request, it is tough to see any real strategy at work. Appropriators put money toward numerous lines resulting in overall increases for all components except the Air Force and Space Force while neglecting foundational procurement programs.

Aside from huge increases for cancer and other health research, the additions to the budget request support efforts ranging from $1.5 million for improved tracking of ship routes to a $122.7 million program increase for the Joint Fires Network. These accounts are where member-directed adds most often appear. But, while these programs may produce military capability, with over 10,000 requests reportedly submitted to the committee, they are seldom strategic in nature.

On the priority of industrial base resilience, appropriators paid particular attention to the submarine industrial base by including over $4 billion for a range of critical areas, which they note is on top of both supplemental ($3 billion) and increased base budget funding ($1.2 billion) provided in fiscal 2024.

Typical of authorizers in addressing comprehensive challenges like that posed by the National Defense Industrial Strategy and its observations, the fiscal 2025 bill contains a cornucopia of legislative initiatives and reporting requirements, from the macro — an entire subtitle devoted to “Industrial Base Matters” and sections to examine the problem specific to shipbuilding — to micro levels, such as the targeted supply chain necessary to produce lithium ion batteries. The authorizers also include references to industrial base health in justifying numerous authorized programmatic increases and direct a preference for U.S.-made components in manufacturing night vision devices, unmanned systems and ammunition.

Building on the $1 billion funding increase provided to the Defense Innovation Unit in fiscal 2024, the House Appropriations Committee again emphasizes efforts related to innovation, speed and fostering process improvements to transition promising technological advancements into production and fielding. The fiscal 2025 bill supports the budget requests for ongoing efforts such as the Rapid Defense Experimentation Reserve, Office of Strategic Capital, and Replicator while again adding money to the Defense Innovation Unit budget, with direction to “apply strategic focus, and promote best practices in leveraging commercial technology.”

Of note, appropriators closely followed the marker laid down by authorizers on the military pay raise for junior personnel by adding $2.5 billion for a 15 percent increase for this part of the force, on top of the 4.5 percent bump requested for all military personnel. Signaling one of many challenges that await as the bills continue to move through the process, the White House already objected to the large additional pay raise.

While both committees rightly acknowledge the importance of taking care of the force, they seem to miss a fundamental aspect of that care. It’s not health care, family programs or even compensation reform. It is strength, power and lethality, which means procurement of capable quantities of ships, planes, ground systems, munitions and satellites and the modernized facilities and parts supply necessary to operate and sustain them.

In the end, the conference with the Senate will determine the path forward for the nation and these two bills provide the starting point for those discussions. In order to truly serve the nation’s security, Congress must prioritize enactment of final defense policy and funding bills when they return to Washington in September.

Elaine McCusker is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former acting undersecretary of defense (comptroller). Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John G. Ferrari is a senior nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former director of program analysis and evaluation for the service.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.