On January 12^th, Pentagon brass headed to the Capitol to tell lawmakers about the effects of operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR). A federal agency (or sometimes the entire federal government) operates under a CR when the appropriations bill funding that agency has not been signed into law for the current fiscal year. A CR freezes in place the funding levels, and therefore priorities, of the previous fiscal year.

Unfortunately, the Congressional budget process has become so dysfunctional recently, that CRs have become the norm.

On the one hand, it’s gratifying to see the House Appropriations Committee (where this hearing occurred) starting the new calendar year with a discussion of the many process issues harmed by widespread reliance on CRs and the lack of Congressional action on its basic responsibility of funding federal agencies.

But on the other hand, Taxpayers for Common Sense despairs over yet another example of Congress holding out the Pentagon as some special case that must be shielded from fiscal and political realities, including endless CRs. Remember the Overseas Contingency Operations account, in place for almost two decades, giving the Pentagon an exclusive “relief valve” from fiscal restraints? We sure do. Let’s not pretend the Pentagon is alone in being negatively impacted by a CR.

During the hearing, Ranking Member Calvert (R-CA) said the quiet part out loud about apparent Republican views of Pentagon spending, “We’ve also made clear that in order for us to support these [appropriations] bills, domestic spending must come down and defense spending must go up.” Already, well more than half of the discretionary budget goes to the Pentagon. “More” is not a strategy, he didn’t even assert why or how much.

Rep. Calvert also referenced, “…seven percent inflation this year, the highest number in almost 40 years, which is harming American families and, certainly, harming the Department of Defense. I’ll remind everyone that inflation is drastically harming DOD’s own buying power.”

But this reasoning ignores that all federal agencies buy things, and every single agency is affected by inflation. We’ll say it again; the Pentagon isn’t some special case.

And lawmakers can’t claim they are doing this in the name of national security. They don’t extend this “special case” status to the Department of Homeland Security nor the portion of the Department of Justice serving a law enforcement function. So that justification falls flat.

It’s important to note the Pentagon Comptroller and the military service chiefs were asked to lay out the effects of a year-long Continuing Resolution. This is a scenario that has never happened to the Pentagon, it has for other agencies, and led to some doom and gloom predictions from the witnesses. But then the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday, said, “As others have stated, we are well accustomed to adjusting to short-term CRs as much as they are inefficient and costly, but we’ve become good at it. A yearlong CR is a completely new territory that we have not dealt with before. It will have significant impacts across our military.”

Unfortunately, not a single member of the subcommittee mentioned a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) looking at how the Pentagon has coped with CRs in the recent past. This study found that the Pentagon has systems in place making it, “able to avoid delays and cost increases during the fiscal years affected by a CR.” As Admiral Gilday pointed out, the Pentagon is even “good at it.”

And while many members of the subcommittee focused on the possibility of negative effects of procurement programs, full Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) made another interesting point, “A full-year continuing resolution would keep platforms and systems that are no longer necessary in service, while blocking the start of new projects. It would reduce the buying power of the Defense Department, lock the Pentagon into last year’s spending such as for a war in Afghanistan we are no longer fighting.”

And that’s just one of the reasons we hate CRs too. Congress should be getting itself together and passing appropriations bills under regular order. We have long made the argument that CRs are bad for governing.

But the GAO study proves the Pentagon has established work-arounds to deal with Congress’ inability to complete its homework and pass the bills on time.

Taxpayers for Common Sense joined an ideologically diverse group of organizations in sending a letter to the Subcommittee on Defense referencing the GAO report and recommending its consideration during the hearing. We’re hopeful the GAO will be asked to testify on its findings, but not holding our breath.

Fix the Congressional appropriations process, yes. But let’s not make the Pentagon a special case, insulated from political realities, yet again.