WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the highest-ranking Republican on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, led his colleagues in a hearing examining a report from a group of congressionally-appointed defense experts studying U.S. deterrence and military power.

The report suggests substantial increases in defense spending are necessary and notes that the United States faces the most serious set of threats since 1945.

Hon. Jane M. Harman, chairwoman of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy and former Congresswoman from California, and Hon. Eric Edelman, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and vice chairman of the Commission, testified before the committee.

In his opening remarks, Senator Wicker spoke to several key themes, to include:

• The new ‘axis of aggressors,’ Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia, growing stronger.
• The need to increase defense spending to five percent of gross domestic product.
• The inability of current U.S. force planning to meet the stated standards of U.S. strategy.
• Deficit in understanding from the American public of the threats posed by great power rivals.

Read the remarks as delivered below or watch them here.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you on a very fine opening statement, which I fully subscribe to.

We have two very distinguished witnesses today, and this may possibly be the most important hearing we will have this year. But I have to say, I very much appreciate the service of Representative Harman and Ambassador Edelman.

Let's go back six years. This committee began hearing – holding hearings on the first National Defense Strategy Commission report, which reviewed the 2018 National Defense Strategy. The first NDS report was important, [it] helped us make significant bipartisan progress toward improving our national defense.

We lost Chairman Jim Inhofe just a few weeks ago. Many of us will remember that he in particular admired that report. He would often hold the report up and wave it around at hearings. His enthusiasm proved that the NDS served as a guiding light for him, and it prompted all of us to consider the report's recommendations.

The global security environment has worsened much faster than we expected back in 2018. The first line of a new 2024 NDS Commission report summarizes the situation in which we find ourselves. I will quote that line: “the threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war.”

A dramatic and forceful statement. It turns out that the commission believes that we are not at all where we need to be. And I think members of the committee understand this. We understand clearly there's no time to waste.

The commission report notes that our military capacity and capabilities are insufficient to meet the current requirements at acceptable risk. The document details the way in which the 2022 National Defense Strategy – an assessment completed just two years ago – did not adequately account for the threat of simultaneous and increasingly coordinated military action by our four primary adversaries, a group which I have come to call the 'axis of aggressors.’

The report correctly notes that with the possible exception of the Department of Defense, the U.S. government is not acting with alacrity or making so-called ‘whole-of-government' strategies more than simply a buzzword. It aptly describes our hollow, brittle defense industrial base, and painfully byzantine bureaucratic process.

The report also finds that we cannot fix these problems without increasing defense spending. Thankfully, this committee has added a $25 billion topline increase for the Fiscal Year 2025 NDAA.

Even that increase, a 3.8 percent nominal addition, would fall short of the commission's recommendation – fall well short. The report endorses a three to five percent real increase this year with inflation running above two percent.

I appreciate the commission's recommendation that national security spending must return to late Cold War levels, a goal which matches my plan to spend five percent eventually of GDP on defense. That level of investment would be temporary. It would be a down payment on the rebuilding of our national defense tools for a generation – tools that, if sharpened, can reduce the risk that our adversaries will use military force against U.S. interests – peace through strength.

The 2018 and 2022 defense strategies both recommended a vague force sizing requirement. The mandate called for the US military to have sufficient forces to defeat either China or Russia in a major conflict, while simultaneously deterring other adversaries. That force sizing construct failed to provide a useful measuring stick by which to determine the ideal size and capability of the U.S. military.

I would appreciate the commissioners expanding upon their new force sizing construct, which proposes that we be able to lead coalitions that can defeat both China and Russia, while continuing to maintain deterrence elsewhere.

I would also like our witnesses to explain a claim they make in the report: the document contends that the American public does not appreciate the threat environment and therefore, does not understand why a strong defense is necessary to ensure a bright future for our country – very perceptive.

This is a perspective that echoes concerns expressed by the recent Congressional Strategic Posture Commission. I'm of the opinion that this is largely the fault of the U.S. government – the executive and legislative branches alike – for failing to make the case to the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on. I would simply say that I appreciate a great deal of the commission report. I'm grateful for the work of all eight bipartisan commissioners and their staff – thank you for calling each and every name of the commissioners. And I hope their labor can help guide us as we write a new National Defense Strategy – and the legislation that will follow – to allow us to regain our military edge and avoid wars in the years to come.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on your opening statement, and I subscribe to it. And I yield back. Thank you, sir.