Senators seek to avoid defense spending limits in debt ceiling legislation.

The debt ceiling bill came under fire from both Democrat and Republican parties for a variety of reasons. One reason cited by some in the GOP was the top line in defense spending.

The bill—negotiated between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and President Joe Biden last weekend and passed overwhelmingly in the House on May 31 and the Senate on June 1—includes a commitment to spend almost $886.35 billion on defense in fiscal year 2024 and just over $895.21 billion the following fiscal year.

The criticisms came as the United States continues to deal with numerous geopolitical threats.

Geopolitical Threats

• China is threatening to invade Taiwan, having conducted a great number of fighter jet exercises near the island nation. And Beijing has taken over man-made islands in the Indo-Pacific, where it has a major naval presence.
• Iran’s nuclear program shows no signs of slowing down while the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism is reportedly planning to increase its attacks on U.S. military personnel in Syria.
• Russia has sought to take over Ukraine since February 2022, but has failed to do so and now faces a Ukrainian counteroffensive.
• North Korea, with its own nuclear program, poses a threat to U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific, including Japan and South Korea.

To prevent further cuts to defense spending, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on June 1 filed an amendment to the debt ceiling package, using the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, as the baseline funding level for sequester. It failed, 48–51, and therefore there will be a 1 percent cut across the board if Congress does not pass all 12 appropriations bills on time. It would kick in on Jan. 1. Were the appropriations bills not to be enacted by the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, a continuing resolution, or CR, would need to be passed to fund the government between Oct. 1 and Jan. 1, McCarthy told The Epoch Times on May 31.

On the Senate floor on June 1, hours before the upper congressional chamber passed the debt ceiling bill, Cotton and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) called for a supplemental defense spending measure.

‘Mortal Risk’ to Cut Defense Budget’

Cotton, who voted against the bill, warned that it “poses a mortal risk to our national security by cutting our defense budget” and that “domestic spending will go up and defense spending will go down if the sequester kicks in.”

Graham remarked that the bill would make America ill-prepared to deal with threats from abroad.

“You cannot say with a straight face that this military budget is a counter to Chinese aggression, that it adequately allows us to defeat Putin,” he said.

“You cannot say with a straight face that this budget represents the threats America faces. A military budget should be based on threats, not political deals to avoid default.”

Graham noted that, according to Adm. Michael Gilday, the chief of naval operations, amid today’s global threats, the United States needs 373 manned ships and 150 unmanned platforms, thereby requiring an increase of 5 percent above inflation. Unless that occurs, said Graham, there would be, in fiscal year 2025, 10 fewer ships than the 296 manned ships currently in use.

“The topline is inadequate, the CR is devastating, and what bothers me the most is that we would put the Department of Defense in this position. We are playing with the men and women’s lives in [the] military, their ability to defend themselves, as some chess game in Washington,” said Graham.

“Well, this is checkers at best,” he continued. “The fact that you would punish the military because we can’t do our jobs as politicians is a pretty sad moment for me.”

Sullivan weighed defense spending against the gross domestic product (GDP).

“The number one priority of the U.S. Congress should be, in my view, what percentage of our national wealth we’re dedicating to defense,” he said.

“This budget will take us in the next two years—with the cut this year, inflation-adjusted cut of 4 to 5 percent, and a nominal increase next year of 1 percent, which would be about a 5 to 6 percent cut—it will take us below the 3 percent of GDP number for defense for the first time since 1999, during the peace dividend era of the [Bill] Clinton administration,” Sullivan said. “We will be below 3 percent of GDP.”

Sullivan, who voted against the bill, cited what percentage of GDP the United States has spent on conflicts: 15 percent with the Korean War; 8 percent with