If the Biden administration is serious about the security of our nation, it must ensure a strong national defense that will deter China and Russia. That means providing the funding needed to implement the NDS. It means using the bipartisan NDS Commission report as a blueprint. It means conditions-based troop levels in key locations across the globe.

These aren’t partisan policies — they are policies that the incoming chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jack Reed, and I have focused on and will work toward in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. As long as President Biden understands and follows through on these priorities as well — and I intend to ensure he does — we will be able to work together to keep our nation safe.

While the United States faces many challenges, China and Russia uniquely threaten our way of life. Both seek to undermine democratic political institutions, including our own. They seek to damage our credibility with foreign partners and redraw borders to suit their ambitions. China in particular is increasingly aggressive in the South China Sea while fielding new capabilities like aircraft carriers and expanding existing ones like ballistic missiles.

This is what we’re up against. So first and foremost, our nation needs leadership at the Pentagon that genuinely understands and agrees to prioritize these challenges. I was concerned that in one of his first, and arguably his most important, national security nominations — secretary of defense — President Biden selected retired Gen. Lloyd Austin, whose career has been focused primarily on the Middle East and didn’t mention China or Russia once in his rationale of the nomination.

However, I was encouraged by what I heard from Gen. Austin at his nomination hearing, and I believe he will work to effectively enable implementation of the NDS and counter the threats posed by these strategic competitors.

Our other top order of business must be making sure our troops have the resources they need to achieve our strategy. Over the past decade, as a result of the Budget Control Act and sequestration, the U.S. military lost $550 billion of planned spending — and that was before China and Russia ramped up their military spending. As a result, our military has been doing too much with too little for too long, and in a constantly unpredictable environment.

First, readiness plummeted — and these readiness-related problems have not yet been fully addressed. Second, shortsighted cuts across the Pentagon drove talented service members to leave and rendered Pentagon civilians unable to conduct critical oversight activities, like the audit. Third, force modernization was put on hold and still moves too slowly. As a result, maintenance costs for aging and outdated equipment are eating the defense budget alive. Now, we must simultaneously upgrade and replace existing equipment and develop weapons technologies where our adversaries lead, such as artificial intelligence.

On top of this, the Biden administration must fully fund priority efforts to counter the threats we face from China and Russia, like the Pacific and European Deterrence Initiatives. This will guarantee we have the right force posture — the right capabilities in the right places — to ensure resiliency in a highly contested combat environment.

Four straight years of increased funding for the military was just a start. We can’t make up for lost time, but President Biden, working with Congress, must replace the $550 billion of defense funding cut by sequestration. Providing this investment — with predictability and certainty — would represent the down payment required to maintain our position against China and Russia over the next several decades.

To preserve nuclear deterrence and cement our most critical alliances, we must continue to modernize our nuclear forces. For decades, we starved investments in our nuclear weapons and infrastructure. In stark contrast, China and Russia expanded their stockpiles, building thousands of additional missiles to threaten the U.S. and our allies. The Biden administration must not ignore these realities. Under President Donald Trump, we’ve made progress in updating our nuclear forces. But again, there’s still a long way to go, such as completing the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and W93 programs.

China and Russia will be the primary focuses, but not the only ones. I believe Congress and the Biden administration share the goal of sustaining the progress we’ve made against ISIS and al-Qaida. This will require maintaining an effective global counterterrorism posture, including in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, to prevent the resurgence of terrorist organizations and to limit their ability to attack us.

Thus far, President Biden has chosen to prioritize diplomatic efforts — that’s clear from his nominations so far — but he would do well to remember that a strong military underwrites strong diplomacy. He cannot discount the need for a combat-credible military force that deters adversaries, reassures allies and partners, and ensures a global balance of power that defends U.S. national security.

Working with Chairman Reed, I will continue to fight for this. President Biden must do the same.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

What is surprising, however, is that after my push to dispel the Ligado lies, Ligado still has investors willing to bet big on them.

In October, the Wall Street Journal reported that Ligado, which went bankrupt in 2012 after a failed effort to repurpose its spectrum, needed to refinance $4 billion in debt to prevent bankruptcy, and gave plum offerings and high returns to hedge fund investors to do so. Having survived one bankruptcy, Ligado will do anything to make sure its Wall Street hedge fund and private equity investors make money — even when it would jeopardize the signals supporting our national and economic security that Americans rely on every day.

Ligado has an agenda — and it’s a scary one. Just think about what activities GPS and satellite communications signals support across the nation. Our troops rely on them for equipment used on the battlefield, farmers rely on them to harvest their crops, and truckers and airlines rely on them to move supplies and people safely; the list goes on and on.

Since its decision, made on a Sunday in April, I’ve been sounding the alarm, and Ligado has been spending tons of cash on lobbyists to try and silence me. So far in 2020, Ligado has spent more than $3 million to lobby members of Congress. And while it has been busy trying to block my efforts to undo the FCC’s decision, my expectation is that Ligado has not communicated to its investors the massive risks they face.

That’s why I’m writing here. For anyone considering an investment in Ligado, I have a free piece of advice: buyer beware.

Sure, the FCC approved the Ligado order back in April, but there are eight separate petitions to reconsider the order pending right now. They are signed by 22 private sector organizations and 14 federal agencies represented by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA. I believe these petitions will be successful in completely repealing Ligado’s permission slip to create interference. Even if they are not, there are three additional strikes that should make any investor fear for their investment.

Ligado’s plan will be detrimental to our nation’s GPS and everything that relies on it. Ligado has claimed the three major GPS manufacturers (Trimble, Garmin and Deere) support Ligado’s plans, pointing to settlement agreements signed in 2015. In fact, these settlement agreements were to resolve lawsuits filed by Ligado! Each GPS manufacturer has publicly stated its settlement agreement is not an endorsement of what Ligado wants to do, nor can it be used as evidence that Ligado will not cause interference to the GPS devices it manufactures. Strike one.

The Department of Defense has reported it could cost billions to upgrade, repair or replace the equipment and systems impacted by Ligado’s plan, but the DoD does not have the money to do that and it shouldn’t be forced to spend taxpayer money to fix problems Ligado causes. That’s why I authored provisions in this year’s annual defense bill that would make it clear: By law, the DoD will not be on the hook for the damages Ligado causes to its equipment and systems.

Furthermore, Ligado — and any other company that may seek to purchase Ligado — is prohibited from contracting with the DoD if they cause interference with the important signals used by the DoD’s equipment and systems. As of this writing, the defense bill has passed both the House and Senate with broad, bipartisan majorities. It will shortly become law. Strike two.

Finally, the Senate confirmed Nathan Simington to the FCC. Simington is the right choice for the FCC. He supports overhauling Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to end Big Tech’s censorship of conservative voices on social media platforms. He most recently served as an adviser at the NTIA, which has coordinated all the federal agencies’ efforts to articulate the dangers of Ligado’s plan, including in filings with the FCC. He appreciates that in approving the Ligado order in April, the FCC steamrolled over objections from 14 separate government agencies — all responsible for ensuring safety-of-life operations dependent on GPS and satellite communication signals.

Nathan Simington knows the process was broken and will make sure the FCC does a better job of engaging with federal agencies in the future. Strike three for Ligado’s future.

Investors need to decide for themselves if they can trust Ligado’s future viability — but I doubt it has been forthcoming about the reality of what’s happening in Washington. If it has not disclosed these three strikes, what else might it be hiding? Three strikes should be enough to show investors that they shouldn’t trust Ligado with any more capital.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in our strategic competition with China. China used to just steal our technology. Now, through heavy investment, they are improving it. The result? China is outpacing the U.S. in key areas like hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence and biotechnologies — not to mention conventional capabilities.

China isn’t the only one. Technological development is accelerating across the globe, expanding to more actors and changing the very nature of war.

We can’t afford to let our advantage erode further. It is up to the Department of Defense and Congress to make sure that the defense-industrial base becomes, as the National Defense Strategy demands, an “unmatched 21st century National Security Innovation Base.” If we want to “sustain security and solvency,” we need to consider wholesale change to industry culture and its interface with the Department of Defense, shed outdated management processes, and reimagine a resilient supply chain that mitigates 21st century risks.

This essay is part of the Defense News 2020 Outlook project. Click here for more.

This begins with software, which is foundational to military capability. The DoD and its traditional hardware-dominant industry partners have been behind on software in almost every way — talent, tools, development and delivery processes. Software innovation has failed in countless DoD programs, including the Ford-class carrier, the F-35′s Autonomic Logistics Information System and the GPS next-generation operational control system. Instead of taking the Pentagon for granted as an endless source of cash flow, partners must refocus their attention on delivering secure capability that actually works.

Next, the Department of Defense needs to continue to expand capacity — prioritizing speed of delivery and adapting its systems to maximize value and output. For too long we have been slow to expand our stockpiles of fifth-generation weapons required to fight peer adversaries. The second production line for JASSM-ER cruise missiles is a good start toward building the capacity needed to retain advantages that will make any enemy think twice before attacking. We must do the same for other fifth-generation weapons, including air-to-air missiles.

Shipbuilding, including aircraft carriers, surface ships, submarines and our logistics fleet, is another area where our capacity is severely limited. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy, which recently surpassed ours in size, is on track to reach 400 ships in 2025 and is nearly self-sufficient for all components.

Size of the fleet isn’t a sole consideration. We’ve focused on ensuring the capability of our fleet remains unmatched and bolstering suppliers of critical components, but we must also improve the construction performance of lead ships in new classes to maintain and build upon our capability advantage. The last thing we want is a fair fight. Innovation is best done at the subsystem level through a rigorous engineering-based process centered on building knowledge through full-scale prototypes, which can then inform ship design. We are eager to work with the Navy to identify and fund more of these prototypes, which will serve as the building blocks of the future fleet.

We also must accelerate innovation. Recent defense authorization legislation encourages the DoD to streamline acquisition, take a business-minded approach to contracting, and tap into nontraditional suppliers and public-private partnerships. This must continue. Dilapidated testing infrastructure is holding us back from catching up to our enemies. Just look at hypersonic weapons: Beijing is parading around dozens of its newest weapons, and we have yet to build one. The DoD has looked to Silicon Valley, but we are competing with Chinese influence there as well, and the Pentagon has often proven an impossible customer due to its antiquated bureaucracy.

Any technological improvements will be meaningless if vulnerable to being infiltrated or stolen. Recent legislation continues support for the DoD as it assesses and mitigates risks to its supply chains posed by adversaries. Both the government and contractors need to cooperate on and use modern verification tools to identify trusted suppliers and manufacturers, as well as fix vulnerabilities. To make these tools useful, the DoD must first establish a working digital model of its suppliers.

Lastly, while we must continue to invest in the domestic, organic industrial base, it’s important to remember that we can’t take on China and Russia alone — which is why the National Defense Strategy emphasizes our network of allies and partners. We must remove unnecessary barriers to industrial cooperation that degrade our collective competitive edge.

We do not have to make a false choice between investing domestically and in our allies — we can do both. Under our National Technology and Industrial Base partnership with Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, we can develop a more diverse, resilient industrial base, secure our supply chains, and become a “five eyes for defense procurement.” It’s in our best interest to ensure our allies can leverage our technological advantages and we can leverage theirs.

Without a strong national security innovation base, the Pentagon cannot implement the National Defense Strategy. Congress’ job is to put the appropriate, tailored policy in place and provide sufficient, predictable resources to help the industrial base meet these challenges. Together, we can harness the power of American innovation to ensure that we are able to win the wars of the future.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But to catch up with China and Russia — and to stay competitive in the future — the Pentagon must reform, even as it rebuilds, by setting clear priorities and modernizing the way it does business. The Department of Defense has a lot of work to do — and quickly — if we’re going to meet the report’s goal of pursuing “urgent change at significant scale.”

In July, the Senate Armed Services Committee worked diligently to execute an expedited, but thorough, confirmation process for Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Deputy Secretary David Norquist. We wanted confirmed leadership in place so we can continue making progress in implementing the National Defense Strategy.

As secretary of the Army, Esper showed a willingness to take risks and make tough decisions to refocus spending on our soldiers’ most pressing warfighting needs, leading an aggressive reevaluation of the Army’s programs of record. The results were compelling: the Army realigned $25 billion to high-priority investments like long-range artillery, network improvements, and new air and missile defense systems. Many of the programs cut to pay for this simply had not been reviewed at a high level in years — they were on autopilot until Esper decided to review the entire portfolio.

Esper should work to do the same across all the services. Finding savings department-wide and across the combatant commands may prove to be more of a challenge than it was in the Army, but it’s no less necessary.

I applaud Esper’s comprehensive, zero-based review of the “fourth estate” — the civilian management functions that make up about 16 percent of the Pentagon’s budget — with the goal of realigning priorities to support the National Defense Strategy. Norquist said, “The review will consider all ideas — no reform is too small, too bold, or too controversial to be considered.”

This is the kind of strategic creativity and senior leadership focus the Pentagon needs to succeed in its reform efforts. The department must look beyond the legacy systems of the past to meet the future needs of peer competition. And it’s even more important amid a future funding outlook missing the 3 to 5 percent real growth necessary to carry out the National Defense Strategy, as the commission recommends. These modernization efforts must free the department’s personnel to innovate and take risks in support of a joint war-fighting operational concept that will deter and, if necessary, defeat near-peer competitors in this new era of strategic competition. More than that — it must also create accountability to move new projects and technologies effectively and rapidly from research and development into the field.

We must re-prioritize the “time, money and manpower” on activities consistent with the National Defense Strategy — spending every tax dollar wisely. I hope to see projects like the zero-based review of defense functions and realignment of the Army’s programs of record to the National Defense Strategy continue and expand. This isn’t going to happen overnight, but it’s an excellent start.

As the department continues to seek opportunities to change the way the Pentagon spends its money — both in the short term and through longer-term structural reforms of the fourth estate — congressional support will be key to moving any reforms forward. Congress must recognize that we have to take risks if we are to move at the “speed of relevance,” as former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis once said. To enable that trust, the department must be consistently forthcoming about its plans, sharing information freely with Congress and fully articulating the risk of new approaches.

The Senate Armed Services Committee will continue its oversight responsibilities to ensure these reforms truly support the National Defense Strategy and are in the best interest of national security. The committee will also keep working efficiently to confirm additional civilian positions that will be indispensable to these reform efforts.

Important work lies ahead for Esper, Norquist, the entire Department of Defense and each of the services. I commend Esper for taking bold, decisive actions to put our armed forces on stronger footing. America needs more than a strategy on paper — we need a strategy in action and a strategy implemented. His leadership will make sure we’re able to take on the difficult threats we face not just today, but tomorrow and for the foreseeable future.

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe is the senior senator from Oklahoma and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.