then Add to Home Screen.
A Conversation with Rep. Don Bacon
One of the biggest proponents in Congress to recapitalize the Air National Guard fighter fleet is a retired Air Force brigadier general.
REP. DON BACON, R-NEB., who specialized in electronic warfare, intelligence and reconnaissance while in uniform, says he didn’t have much interaction with the Air Guard until later in his nearly 30-year career, but what he learned then made a lasting impression.
“Your most experienced pilots and maintainers serve in the Guard,” he says. “And when you lose that expertise, it’s lost.”
Which is why he is a staunch advocate of retaining all 25 Air Guard fighter squadrons.
Bacon is also pushing to improve quality of life for service members and their families. He is chairman of the House Armed Service Committee’s new Quality of Life Panel, which has recommended significant improvements to junior enlisted pay and housing.
All his goals would be easily attained if the nation adequately funded defense, he says.
Now in his fourth term in the House of Representatives, Bacon is known as one of the most bipartisan members of Congress, unafraid to reach across the aisle for support on an issue or to criticize intransigence in either party.
Bacon sat down with NATIONAL GUARD recently in his Capitol Hill office to talk about his background and the defense issues that have his attention.
The following was edited for length.
You spent nearly 30 years in the Air Force, deploying four times while rising to the rank of brigadier general. You did more than your fair share of service to our country. What drew you to run for a seat in Congress?
I enjoyed the Air Force other than the Pentagon. PowerPoint slides don’t fire me up. But I love the operational Air Force. A lot of people say, “Thanks for service.” I enjoyed 95% of it, and they paid me.
I worked for a congressman before joining the Air Force when I was 20 years old. That was Representative Ed Madigan, who ended up being the secretary of agriculture for President George Bush 41. I’ve always been active [in politics.] I was active in Ronald Reagan’s campaign [for president] in Illinois in 1976. I was 13 years old at the time. And the day I retired from the military on Nov. 1, 2014, I gave a speech in a tight political race. So, on Day One of retirement, I picked up where I left off.
But it was not my goal to run for Congress. I ended up being the Republican nominee to try to get that seat back. But the bottom line is, I love my country. It’s about serving the greatest country in the world, and our freedoms and our land of opportunity. I love what our country stands for and I want to be an advocate. I’ve read about Reagan, Churchill, Grant, Eisenhower. I want to be someone who makes a difference.
How do your experiences in uniform form your work on the House Armed Services Committee?
I studied Russia for a long time. I studied their nuclear capabilities in the 1980s. Political stuff. And then I spent a lot of time studying China. Eventually, a lot of time on Iran. I deployed four times and did a lot of time in Iraq and some time in Afghanistan. So, I think I’d be able to take this expertise on potential adversaries and put that to good work.
Secondly, I worked with our nuclear forces. As a one-star, I was the emergency action officer in the airborne mission. So, I can say I got a little grounding on our nuclear side. I also know what it’s like to be in a unit that doesn’t have enough money for training. So, I just think I bring some related experience to the Armed Services Committee, and I try to leverage that experience.
Last year, you introduced legislation that, among other things, would prevent the Air Force from closing any of the National Guard’s 25 fighter squadrons, at a time when pilot and maintenance staffing are at critically low levels. This specific version did not make it into the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. On March 7, the service announced plans to close the fighter squadron at the Maryland Air National Guard’s 175th Wing. Are your concerns being realized here?
Closing the Guard flying unit in Maryland takes us backwards when it comes to having the amount of aircraft we need for a future fight. We’re going to lose all this expertise. Now, this bill did get the attention of the Air Force. I had the Air Force chief of staff in here and the vice chief tried to talk me out of it. I knew we didn’t probably have the support overall to get it done through the House and the Senate. But at least put our marker out there.
Our Guard force is getting smaller, and that hurts our country’s defense capabilities. From that, we got to get some commitments from the Air Force to have a floor for aircraft. And I think it’s 1,145 fighter aircraft, they’ve set it as a floor. And I think one year would go slightly below but then we’ll start picking back up. And also from that we’ve been able to put in the law, the Air Force has to show us if you say they need this force here to go against China, but they’re doing the opposite in reality. So, what is the plan to get from here to what you actually need for a China fight?
So, they’re going to build us a force model, or the force blueprint that they need. Now, the truth is Congress is a part of the problem here and the president. We should be spending above 3.5% of the gross domestic product on defense. And we capped spending this year in an agreement between then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the president. And the bottom line is, our spending levels are too small to do everything the services need to do and improve quality of life.
Why is the Air Force having such a hard time modernizing its aircraft fleet?
It’s the cap on spending that we have. We should be spending. The Air Force should get a little bit larger share of the defense pie. Right now, about 20% of the Air Force’s portion is being funneled off to intelligence organizations. The Army and the Navy do not have that problem. I also believe the overall spending on defense is too low.
Now, how did we get there? It’s a little complicated. If we had our way on the Republican side, for the most part, or some outliers, we would probably raise our defense by like 4% of GDP. The Democrats say that for every dollar you put over here, they want $1 on nondefense. I don’t see the connection, frankly. I’d rather spend what’s needed.
But whatever those ratios are, we’ve been stuck in that mindset of “for every dollar up here, we have to put a dollar up over here or a dollar down here is a dollar here on the other side.” It doesn’t work. So, I think if you look historically, our military is underfunded right now, per GDP levels. I think we should reflect on that. I’ll tell you right now with the amount of money we’re spending, we’re looking at for FY 25, we’re not going to be able to modernize our services for a China fight and take care of our people. It’s going to require a supplemental [appropriation].
Or a choice of one or the other.
And the services now focus more on capability than on people and it’s showing. We have one out of eight illicit people on food stamps. The barracks are getting failing grades because the military has been siphoning money off of barracks or dorms and put it into capability. You can’t shoot your people and expect to retain them and recruit them.
Let’s get back to the divest to invest strategy. You obviously don’t agree with it, but does the Air Force have any other choice?
Not probably with the spending caps we have right now. Spending levels are just too low. I get some of the divest to invest. I can see a one-to-one ratio. But what’s alarming in recent years is, we bring in about 2.5 aircraft for renewal at a time that we’re trying to build up our Air Force. We got China, Russia, Iran. And some of the older F-15s and F-16s may not be the most relevant aircraft for China, but they’re still damn good for the Middle East.
So, I just think we’re cutting too far too fast, and it seems counterproductive to our overall strategy or our national security. And I know they said, “Well, we don’t have the money.” Ultimately, this is a budget issue. We’re underfunding the Air Force. I get that. But a 2.5-1 ratio of cutting versus adding defies common sense to me.
Congress has the final say in defense policy and appropriations. What can lawmakers do to accelerate the Air Force and the Air National Guard’s effort to retool for great power competition?
I believe we’re going to have to go above 3.5% GDP on defense spending — 3.5% of our GDP is historically low. For you to spend at the regular means, I’d say around 4%. I think then we would have the adequate resources to go get fifth-generation aircraft and bolster quality of life.
And just to come back to where I began, the Guard is so important, because your most experienced pilots and maintainers serve in the Guard. And when you lose that expertise, it’s lost. And we need a place for an F-35 pilot after he’s been in for 11 years and says, “Hey, I want to add stability for my family, but I still want to serve.” The Guard is perfect for that. And I know when I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Guard was so important to us. We’ve got to protect it.
We're about kicking anybody's ass in the world that wants to pick a fight with America.
Is the key to this communicating what you’re saying to the American public?
I think we need a secretary of finance that articulates this clearly. I know [House Armed Service Committee] Chairman [Mike] Rogers gets it. He talks about it. I think we feel like our hands are tied a little bit right now because we also have a deficit problem and a debt problem. However, most of that debt is not discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is 30% of the budget. Our income tax is covered very well. On the mandatory side, the withholdings that come out of every paycheck do not cover the outlays.
So, we’re going to have a discussion, how do you safeguard and modernize our mandatory spending? Because those impacts are right now hurting us on defense on the discretionary side. But we’ve got to have a leadership that can articulate that we need to modernize over here. There’s four or five different ways you can go about that. But by doing that we can defend our country, because we didn’t have the capability of setting a 4% GDP on defense. But we’re choked right now because we have a mandatory spending crisis.
The National Guard Bureau estimates that nearly one in five Guardsmen have no medical coverage. There is legislation under consideration in the House that would provide every Guardsman and Reservist with what is called Zero-cost TRICARE health coverage. Why do you think is not getting traction?
I think the perceived expense of it is there, but we have to do something when a Guardsman has no health care, and then we need them and you find out there’s health issues that prevent them from deploying. And that has a real impact. So, we probably need to find a cost-share or something to help offset some of the costs for a Guardsman to get TRICARE. I mean, they’re willing to look at some kind of plan here.
I’ve also heard from some of the senior enlisted from the Guard that some people need dental work. You know, you got to deploy Johnny and Johnny needs like four fillings before he deploys. So we got to work on that as well. I see the need. I’m not smart enough quite yet to know how to fix it. But I know that we have to put a spotlight on it. What is the best way forward?
Isn’t there a payoff for the investment here?
Yeah. There is an upfront cost, but in the end, you have to deploy the force. And we find if you don’t do the upfront cost, you’re still doing the back-end cost, because who’s paying for those four fillings that were done? When the guy comes on duty to deploy, it’s still the military. Why don’t we take care of it early?
Also, perhaps a boost to recruiting and retention?
Yeah, I think if you’re serving in the Guard and you’re getting help with your health care and dental care, I think there would be an advantage. But one of the reasons I stayed in for 30 years was that I knew my wife and four kids had health care, and I liked that.
Why is the military struggling so much with recruiting and retention these days, mostly recruiting?
I don’t think it’s just one reason. I think right now we have a confluence of three things. Quality of life is one factor. It’s the wear and tear on family. So, quality of life is something we have got to do better on and we’re going to make huge headway this coming year. And I know it’s not a one-time deal for the [HASC] chairman. It will be a focus area as long as we’re the majority party.
Another factor is, I think people want to join a military that is second to none. Nobody wants to fight the U.S. military. That perception draws people in. But when you ask military members today, “Do you recommend this for your sons or daughters?” It’s at an all-time low. I think Afghanistan hurt us. What the president did on the withdrawal, it was a black eye to the military. It wasn’t our fault, because the chairman of the Joint Chiefs recommended against it. The U.S. Central Command commander recommended against it. But they were overruled. And then we had a disastrous withdrawal. Thirteen servicemen and women were killed. We left the interpreters behind. It was a double black eye and a bloody nose to all of us who served. Nothing made me more mad professionally in my life. I do think that hurt us. We’re still a winning team, but perceptions are reality when it comes to recruiting.
I’ve also talked to conservative moms and dads. There’s a perception that our services are too focused on social issues. I believe that perception is exaggerated. But our leadership could help by more effectively communicating that we’re about warfighting. We’re about kicking anybody’s ass in the world that wants to pick a fight with America. You don’t hear that from our top military leadership or the civilian appointees. So, there is a recruiting perception from some of the families that the military has gone soft. And we’re going to fix that perception.
So, you got like three things going on: quality of life, the hangover from the Afghanistan withdrawal and this perception of, “Is the military all about warfighting or is it a social experiment?” You put those three things together and we’re struggling with recruiting.
Congress included a provision in the fiscal 2022 and 2024 NDAA requiring the Defense Department to provide Guardsmen and Reservists with the same special and incentive pay that it provides active component personnel for the same level of proficiency. Why isn’t the Pentagon following the law?
They’re not in compliance and we’re being told that they need a little more time to get all the bureaucracy right on it, just to put it bluntly. They don’t have their ducks in line on a shot. But they said they’re working on it. So, our job in the oversight role is to push them and cajole them and get them on the right spot. But we expect them to be in compliance but right now they’re behind.
Looking across the country and around the world, what hotspot, issue or emerging threat concerns you the most?
Internationally, I worry most about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Because I think that if you’re an Israeli leader, it’s unacceptable, because Iran has sworn they will wipe you off the map. And so I see that could escalate rapidly. Russia will not stop until they’re convinced we’re not going to let them. So, it’s so important to provide military weapons to Ukraine. If for some reason, the Russians are marching down the streets in Kyiv at the end of the year, they’re not going to stop there. It’s going to be Moldova, could be the Baltics. You see Russian President Vladimir Putin threatening the prime minister or the presidents of Estonia and Latvia recently. Even the No. 2 guy for Russia says Latvia is not a real state. So, they’re making threats towards the Baltics.
If we don’t do an effective job right now in Ukraine this isn’t going to go away. So, with 5% of our military budget annually, we’ve been able to help Ukraine prevail. So, it’s actually cost effective and we’re also rejuvenating our production base, which is also good. Those are the two big things internationally.
But China is clearly the pacing threat. I don’t honestly see them as the enemy as much as a potential adversary. They want to be the world’s leader down the road. They want to have their currency be the world currency. They don’t share our values, but also say that they need us so it’s not like Russia or Iran, where they would be happy to see us destroyed. They need us. So, I think there are opportunities to work with China, but we’ve got to be smart about it. But they don’t need to be our enemies either, if we’re smart.
Now domestically, I think the biggest problem we have is this hyper-partisan environment we’re in. We can’t agree on the basics. You see, the left and the right have gone farther apart. There’s fewer people willing to negotiate and work in the middle. [President] James Madison designed a system that protects the minority. So, you have to get consensus to recover. And the leading voices in Congress right now don’t want to compromise. They want to find consensus. It’s like we’re going to shove down the throat of the other party what we want. It doesn’t work. So, therefore, we can’t solve the debt crisis and not spend enough on defense. We can’t fix the border. And we’re struggling to be the world superpower through our actuals. That’s how I see our threats.
Do you find yourself alone in working with both sides?
There’s more than you see but they’re not enough. You have to find areas of consensus. Ronald Reagan was right. If you agree with me 80% of the time, you’re not my enemy. But today’s folks on our side of the party and the other side as well, if you’re not 98% sure, then you’re my enemy. And it doesn’t work.
AT A GLANCE: Rep. Don Bacon
BORN: Donald John Bacon, Aug. 16, 1963 (Momence, Ill.)
FAMILY: Wife (Angie), three sons, one daughter and eight grandchildren
EDUCATION: Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Ill., B.A. Political Science, 1984; University of Phoenix, M.A. Management, 1995; National War College, Fort McNair, Washington D.C., 2004
CIVILIAN WORK EXPERIENCE: Member, U.S. House of Representatives, Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, 2017-present; congressional aide; assistant professor, Bellevue University, Bellevue, Neb.
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: Armed Services Committee and Agriculture Committee
MILITARY SERVICE: Active-component Air Force, 1985–2014; specialized in electronic warfare, intelligence and reconnaissance; retired as a brigadier general
OVERSEAS ASSIGNMENTS: Wing commander, Ramstein Air Base, Germany; four deployments to the Middle East to include Iraq in 2007 to 2008 during Operation Iraqi Freedom
ALSO NOTABLE: Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Cyber, Information Technology and Innovation Subcommittee and its new Quality of Life Panel. A prominent voice in the House on foreign policy, he is among a slate of U.S. lawmakers sanctioned by the Russian government, and the first member of Congress to be hacked by the Chinese government. An original sponsor of legislation that created the Naming Commission, which removed references to the Confederacy from Defense Department property.
Source: House bio
