Members of both parties seem resigned that sequestration is here to stay. Pro-Pentagon members seem frustrated and increasingly at a loss about how to make their colleagues sympathize with their contention that the military needs more cash.

During a Feb. 11 House Armed Services Committee hearing, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said pro-military lawmakers should just start trying to "scare the crap out of" other members.

In these excerpts, Rogers and others sought advice on their talking points from some military budget experts during that hearing.

'What Would You Say?'

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va.: "Using your best communication skills, not with defense-speak ... what's the best message that we can use to communicate with other policymakers who might be sitting in Ways and Means right now, or who may be individuals across the country, to tell them the dangers ... to this country if these curve lines continue the way they are and we can't change them? What would you say?"

Jim Thomas, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA): "I'd start by talking about not just the security that we have today in this country, but what's the security for our kids. ... What kind of country are we leaving in the future? And as you point to these trend lines, there's a perception of American weakness right now in the world and that perception, I think, is growing.

"And how we overcome it ... we have to get our fiscal house in order. ... How secure are we as — as a potential investment? And so that's critical. Fiscal rectitude is the foundation for everything else. And so I think that we would be very open to, whether it's entitlement reform, revenue increases."

Ryan Crotty, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): "To me ... the strength of American power is on our economic prosperity, and that prosperity is based on a rules-based international order that is undergirded by our involvement in the global security. And I think that that's the biggest argument, to me, about why we need what we have."

Nora Bensahel, American University: "Reforming the defense budget resonates. You know, my mother used to ask me, 'Why can't the United States defend itself on $500 billion a year?' It's an excellent question. If we started the budget from zero we would probably allocate things very differently. But making a public case about how we spend that money and why those dollars are needed to protect US interests around the world, to continue playing a leadership role, and to say that not everything looks like the wars of the past 13 years is an important step."

'Deficit's Going Down'

Rep. Rogers: "The problem we have is many people in the Congress think it's working out just fine. Deficit's going down, they're not hearing the Defense Department squeal too much, and we're ... not dead. So we have the challenge, as members of this committee, to communicate not only to the public but, more importantly, to our fellow colleagues and our leadership the problem in a way that makes them want to act.

"Assume you're talking to my 75-year-old mother who never finished high school, in that kind of language, and explain to her ... why this has got to be fixed and it's got to be fixed with this budget."

Tom Donnelly, American Enterprise Institute: "I can't believe that a woman like that would be content to send American soldiers into harm's way without preparing them for victory. I would not want to give up on that idea. I think that is something that touches Americans who don't serve very deeply."

DoD's 'Not Squealing'

Rep. Rogers: "My colleagues are going to say, 'Listen, the Defense Department's not squealing. I think it's working out just fine. Tell me why it's a threat.' "

Donnelly: "You know, go out to a rifle range, go to ... a unit, go to a hangar and see pilots who aren't flying."

Rep. Rogers: "You're missing my point. I'm on the floor talking to a colleague from Wisconsin. He's giving me 15 or 20 seconds of attention before he's moving on."

Bensahel: "The world is a dangerous place and we're dealing with more difficult threats than we have in a long time. And we have to be able to deal with the full range of threats, from a group like [the Islamic State] that beheads innocent people, to an aggressive Russia that is invading, taking over territory from other states. The United States has a leadership role to play in ensuring those things don't happen."

Todd Harrison, CSBA: "Sir, can I try a completely different approach? Because I don't think the defense arguments are going to convince a person that hasn't already been convinced by them, because I think they've heard all of this.

"What I would say is the [Budget Control Act] budget caps were set without regard for need. They were set to reach a predetermined deficit reduction target. The BCA was intended as a forcing function, not as a means of governing. So I would say, with all due respect, Congress should do its job and govern, and reconsider those caps, and spend what is necessary for defense, not an arbitrary level."

'They Don't See the Harm'

Rep. Rogers: "I'm just telling you, our colleagues don't get it. They really think they're working and they don't see the harm, and this is dangerous." ■

Share:
More In Congress