WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee is raising alarms about the prospect of a longterm stopgap funding bill for fiscal 2026, warning in an exclusive interview with Breaking Defense against repeating a yearlong CR that’s already shown to be “damaging” to the Pentagon.
“As an appropriator, I agree with the [House Appropriations Committee] Chairman Tom Cole that we should keep this CR for a short period of time. We need to continue to put the pressure on to get this appropriation process completed,” Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., said on the Breaking Defense video series The Congressional Roundup. “We’ve been public about wanting this to be sometime in November. [We’re] flexible on what that date might be. There are some who want to have a CR until spring. There’s been reports from the administration of that effect. That’s not something that we’re supportive of.”
Under the FY25 CR, “we’re still open and doing business as the Department of Defense … [but] it’s damaging to the day-to-day operations of the department,” he added. “It’s not why people send members of Congress to do this job, to have continuing resolutions. It’s to have us work this out and to fund the United States government,” he said.
Congress has only nine legislative days to hammer out a continuing resolution before funding runs out at the end of the month. GOP leaders have yet to unveil the text of a CR, with Republicans at odds on a strategy for the bill. The leaders of the appropriations committees have pushed for a short-term CR that would extend until November — enough time, they say, to negotiate a full-year bill — while some hardline conservatives are angling for a longer or full-year CR that would freeze federal funding.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, released a statement on Tuesday saying that the White House had requested that Congress extend the CR until Jan. 31.
Calvert warned that under a continuing resolution, which keeps funding at the levels of the previous fiscal year, the Pentagon can’t start new programs. Even when Congress tries to build in language that gives the Pentagon more flexibility to spend its money, “you can’t create enough anomalies to predict what’s necessary within the largest enterprise in the world,” making it imperative that lawmakers get to work on passing a full year budget, he said.
“We’re doing everything we can to make sure we can pass a defense appropriation bill and to and to keep our doors open. It’s important,” he said. “It’s been destructive to have a CR this last year, I think, and it’s caused operating problems. I won’t get in the specifics of it, but it’s not the right way to run a business.”
In some previous CRs, Congress has added hundreds of millions — and sometimes billions — for emerging defense needs ranging from funding needed for the Virginia-class submarine program to disaster relief for military bases. This year, Calvert posited that the bill would most likely be a “relatively clean” CR without major changes to defense spending, but could include “some anomalies, maybe some reprogramming requests.”
RELATED: Can Congress pass a FY26 defense budget this year? Here are 12 key issues for lawmakers.
Asked about the possibility of a government shutdown, which will happen if Congress fails to pass a CR by the Oct. 1 deadline, Calvert said he’s “always concerned” about that possibility.
“I’ve gone through a number of them. They’re never pleasant, and it serves no purpose,” he said. “Especially to the Department of Defense. It causes all kinds of difficulties. So hopefully we can be adults and get this worked out.”
Even More Challenges Ahead
Calvert is not the only lawmaker concerned that a CR that extends into 2026 could have negative effects on the Defense Department. On Sept. 3, Rep. Rob Wittman, the chairman of the House Armed Services tactical air and land subcommittee, said that “all the positive effects” of the $150 billion included for defense in the reconciliation bill would “go away” under a long-term CR.
“I would argue it is even impacted by short-term CR, but not as much,” he added in a recorded message for the Defense News conference.
Sen. Mike Rounds, chair of the Senate Armed Services cybersecurity subcommitee and member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, added during a later panel at the conference that “there is a desire, Republican and Democrat alike, to find a path forward so we don’t have a long term continuing resolution.”
However, even if appropriators are successful in winning a short-term CR, they will face an uphill battle to pass a full year appropriations bill. The Senate’s version of the defense spending bill includes an additional $22 billion for the US military compared to the House bill, which abided by the White House’s flat budget request. (The House passed its $832 billion version of the bill in July, while the Senate has yet to take its $853 billion defense bill to the floor.)
Beyond that question, arriving at a defense bill that can pass both chambers will be a balancing act. Republicans have a razor-thin majority in the House, which lends power to hardline fiscal conservatives who could fight against a boost to defense spending. Meanwhile, a 60-person majority is needed to pass a bill in the Senate, which puts pressure on Republicans to make concessions with Democrats in order to meet that threshold.
Calvert signaled that he could be open to increasing the defense topline above the levels currently agreed to in the House bill.
“We have a lot of needs within the department. Obviously we passed reconciliation. We have an additional pot of money, $150 billion, but really, those go into specific locations,” he said. “So we need to still have the backbone in effect, and that’s the appropriation bill.”