Republican Rep. Mike Rogers has represented Alabama’s 3rd Congressional District since 2003 and has served on the House Armed Services Committee for his entire 18 years in Congress. With the retirement of Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry last term, Rogers is now the top Republican on the committee, which plays a key role in setting defense policy and spending priorities. He spoke to the Washington Examiner’s Jamie McIntyre recently about his expectations for the 117th Congress.
[This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity]
Washington Examiner: You’re assuming a leadership role at a time when the Congress, even your party, is more divided than any time in recent memory, yet you are on the one committee that has a reputation for being able to bridge partisan differences in the name of national defense. How do you see your relationship with Chairman Adam Smith? Is he the kind of Democrat you can work with?
Mike Rogers: Yes. Adam and I have served together. He’s been on the committee a little bit longer than I, but this is my 19th year on the committee, so we’ve known each other for a long time. He has demonstrated, in the last Congress in particular, a real willingness to reach across the aisle and work with us. The first year of his chairmanship, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and the Left of their party really pushed him on the immigration issue and made things a little ugly. But that wasn’t him. That was leadership pushing him. Last year, he didn’t allow that to happen and really worked hard to reach across the aisle to help the Republicans any way he could. He and I stay in regular touch since I won this ranking member’s position, and I have every confidence that we’re going to be very bipartisan throughout our tenure together.
Washington Examiner: Is part of that because Smith has spent some time in the minority, and he knows he could very well be there again in two years? You know, “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you”?
Rogers: It’s just been the nature of our committee. We treasure the fact that we put partisanship aside when it comes to our troops and trying to get things done. When you look at our committee, we fight like cats and dogs over about 5% of the issues, but a little over 90% are just national security issues, and it’s not Democrat or Republican. It’s not part of it. It’s just, “What do we do to help deal with this threat?” So, part of it’s the nature of the subject matter, but also a part of it is just conditioning. We help members … understand this is not the Judiciary Committee. This is not Education and Labor. This is Armed Services, and this is about the troops and keeping our nation safe, and we’ve just had a great spirit of bipartisanship historically on that committee, and I have every confidence it’s going to continue. I think you’re going to see us get a lot of good things done together.
Washington Examiner: Smith is going to be facing some pressure from the progressive wing of his party to cut defense spending, especially with the deficit soaring because of COVID relief. You hear a lot of talk at the Pentagon about how defense spending will be flat for years to come. What’s your prediction?
Rogers: He is going to get a lot of pressure. I was very proud of Adam that he went ahead and signaled that he’s not going to be OK with any cuts to defense spending. The National Defense Strategy referred to an independent commission that recommended we need to have at least 3%, preferably 5% growth each year, real growth [in the defense budget] in the near future to be able to take on the modernization challenges that we have. That was embraced by [former Defense] Secretary [Jim] Mattis. [Defense] Secretary [Lloyd] Austin has also embraced that. I talked at length with [Joint Chiefs] Chairman [Gen. Mark] Milley. He is very vocal that we have to do that.
So, there’s a lot of demand and need for real growth, but there is no daylight between me and Adam on cuts. We don’t have the luxury of reducing spending in defense. We’re in the middle of a modernization effort, and China is really stepping up their game. So, this is not really an option. So, I expect that to become a real tense issue when it comes to his left, putting pressure on him to try to cut defense spending, but I think, in the end, we’ll be able to hold it where it is.
Washington Examiner: What are the chances that this year, without the distraction of election-year politics, that the Congress can pass both the defense authorization and appropriations bill before the start of the next fiscal year Oct. 1 so the Pentagon will be fully funded from Day One?
Rogers: Based on the partisan behavior of the Democrat leadership so far this year, I don’t see much hope in that happening. Once we leave the Armed Services Committee, this place gets very, very dark and partisan. We will get the [National Defense Authorization Act] passed. It’s just the appropriations bills are the problem.
Washington Examiner: President Trump deservedly gets credit for ordering what was a reluctant Pentagon to get on board with the Space Force, but long before that, you were pushing for a Space Corps that would be part of the Air Force the same way the Marine Corps is part of the Navy. Isn’t that what we ended up with, just under a different name?
Rogers: That’s exactly what happened. And in fairness to the president, I mean, he was the one who really was insistent about changing the name from Space Corps to Space Force. I didn’t care what you called it. We just knew we needed to be able to deal with that threat. But you’re right. We had already passed this out of the House the year before he ever was [into] Space Force, and with bipartisan support. It was the Senate where we had a problem. In fairness to the president, he really helped us with the Senate Armed Services Committee and helped move that bill. As you know, it was fully embraced by the military, by the Pentagon, that second year, and it wasn’t just the president wanting it.
Washington Examiner: The Space Force has been the butt of more than a few jokes, in part because of the Netflix parody series that depicts infantry battles on the moon, but do you think the general public is confused about the new service’s mission?
Rogers: Absolutely. I’ve been working on this for a while. The main reason for that is they don’t understand this is about satellites. This is not about putting people up in space. It’s about satellites, and they don’t understand how much satellites are involved in their daily lives, just their domestic daily lives. It is heavily overclassified, as is most things in the Defense Department, but I’ve been working with [Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman] Gen. [John] Hyten and [Chief of Space Operations] Gen. [Jay] Raymond for the last couple of years about getting that declassified. Once the public understands that we’re talking about national security satellites and what they do and what China and Russia are doing compared to us, they will completely embrace this. But right now, all they can reference is Star Trek and the late-night jokes.
Washington Examiner: While we’re talking space, I have to ask you about the Air Force decision to designate Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama, your home state, as the “preferred” location for the future U.S. Space Command headquarters. The folks in Colorado, where SPACECOM is now, are hopping mad, convinced that President Trump ordered the change at the last minute as a reward for his backers in Alabama. What are the chances that decision will be revisited?
Rogers: I think there’s a pretty good chance it’s going to be reviewed, just because a lot of them are howling right now from the states that were competing for it and didn’t win. I’ve been here a long time, and I’ve seen this show repeatedly. Every time there’s a big competition for some big project, the states that don’t win yell, “Politics! It was all political,” and that’s what’s happening here. I don’t have a problem at all with there being a review of the selection process, and I’m confident that Huntsville is going to prevail and it’s going to stay there. I talked with [former Air Force Secretary Barbara] Barrett after the selection was made, not before. She emphasized to me that this is all objective data and there was no politics involved, and I take her at her word.
Washington Examiner: I did read the Air Force release about it, though. I noticed that it said, “The Air Force anticipates making a final decision in the spring of 2023.” That seemed to indicate there might be some possibility of change.
Rogers: I haven’t seen that, but change is always possible in Washington. I just don’t think it’s going to happen.
Washington Examiner: The Pentagon recently announced a four-month strategy review to consider how best to confront and counter China’s rising military and economic power. What would you expect to come from that? And more broadly, what do you think the U.S. needs to do?
Rogers: I expect that review to show that we’re coming up short on our investments and our pace of modernization. This is my No. 2 goal. My No. 1 goal is to make sure defense spending is not cut, and hopefully, it is increased in the coming years. But No. 2 is to keep us completely focused on China and our modernization efforts to be able to meet the threats coming from China. While we have to be cognizant of the threats from Russia and Iran and North Korea and other players that are adversarial toward us, China is the short-term and long-term main threat that we have to be focused on, and I think it always has to take a dominant position in our attention.
Washington Examiner: You voted for the waiver Gen. Lloyd Austin needed to serve as defense secretary since he had not been out of uniform for the required seven years. There’s a good reason for that requirement, namely to ensure we have civilians in control of the military. Are we in danger of eroding that bedrock principle?
Rogers: I don’t think so, mainly because we made it very clear that, if you’re going to do it for a Republican president and a Democrat president comes right behind him, well, it seems unfair, if, in fact, the candidate’s very qualified, to not show the same opportunity. So, Adam Smith and I both take the position that this is it. We’ve done it for a Republican. We’ve done it for a Democrat. Don’t send another one to us if it doesn’t meet the criteria. Now, having said that, there is some possibility we might take that up and this year, in the NDAA, and see if there’s a more appropriate time frame. Seven years is kind of arbitrary to me. I don’t see the difference between seven and six or five or whatever, so you may see us address that in the NDAA. But having said that, I will not vote for another waiver in the foreseeable future, probably during my tenure at the top of the Armed Services Committee for Republicans, simply because we’ve done it twice, just as a matter of equity. It’s not a good practice. Plus, there’s just tons of civilians out there that are very qualified.
Washington Examiner: Republicans are in the minority in the House, but just barely. As the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, you’re in a position of considerable influence. What do you hope to accomplish in this session? What’s at the top of your to-do list?
Rogers: Well, again, the No. 1 is protecting defense spending. No. 2 is to keep it focused on China, and then, you saw, we separated out cyber from the Emerging Threats Committee, so, we now have a separate subcommittee that’s focused on cybersecurity. That is something that we have to put a lot of time and attention into and making sure that we’re prepared to deal with the cyberthreats, not just from the major adversaries like China and Russia, but this is an area where a whole lot of smaller players have a real impact if we aren’t prepared for it. So, I think you’re going to see a real bipartisan effort on our part to really address our cybersecurity threats.
Jamie McIntyre is the Washington Examiner’s senior writer on defense and national security. His morning newsletter, “Jamie McIntyre’s Daily on Defense,” is free and available by email subscription at dailyondefense.com.
