Bills
| 3.23.22

Authorizing Military Funding Levels for 2016 (S. 1356)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is S. 1356?

(Updated March 30, 2019)

This bill was enacted on November 25, 2015

Update November 4, 2015: This bill was co-opted by the House after the Senate had passed it, and was amended from delaying a rule affecting pay for border patrol agents to serving as the legislative vehicle for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016.

This bill would authorize appropriations for national defense spending for fiscal year 2016. As an authorization, not an appropriation, this bill does not give defense agencies the power to spend — but it  lay down the foundation for future bills that will give the government real money to spend.  

The goal of this bill is authorize a total of $611.8 billion for defense spending with:

The bill matches the Obama administration's requests for defense spending, but ignores many of the President's proposals.  

The biggest rejections come in the form of funding for aircraft. The House Armed Services Committee rejected the Pentagon's request to retire an A-10 attack jet aircraft. Instead, the Thunderbolt II — commonly known as the “Warthog” — would have its funding restored ($682.7 million). The Navy would also receive 12 additional F/A 18 Super Hornets, and the Marine Corps would get 6 more F-35B Joint-Strike Fighters. These are additional aircraft than were requested for a total of $2.15 billion between the two programs. 

Other requests from that Pentagon that were ignored: The authorization to close some military bases to cut funding have been rejected. A 2.3 percent pay raise for troops (instead of the Pentagon's requested 1 percent) have been slotted into this bill. 

This authorization would also make major changes to how the military retirement system functions, starting in 2018. One such change would be how the Dept. of Defense matches contributions for military members to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). The new matching would (the DOD hopes) encourage service members to contribute more to the TSP — reducing their taxable income. 

Other areas that would have increased funding from the President's plan include:

  • Service-members’ housing allowance, 
  • Missile defense cooperation with Israel,
  • Upgrades to the H-60 Blackhawk, the Stryker vehicle, and the C-130,
  • Increased logistical operations to meet readiness objectives. 
The Tomahawk missile program would also have its funding restored, despite attempts to end the program. This bill also funds the accelerated development of a new U.S. rocket propulsion system to be used for space exploration.

Argument in favor

National defense is the federal government’s primary responsibility, and increasing funding from the previous fiscal year recognizes increased demands on our military in a dangerous world.

Argument opposed

Defense spending is one of the most bloated parts of our government. This plan gives money to programs that the military doesn't want, some of which should be cut altogether.

Impact

Everyone who benefits from U.S. national security — including average citizens; members of the U.S. military; federal agencies that receive funding through this legislation, particularly the Department of Defense.

Cost of S. 1356

The CBO estimates that this bill would authorize about $1.1 trillion in spending over the 2016-2025 period.

Additional Info

In-Depth: This bill was co-opted and used as a legislative vehicle for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) following the President's veto of an earlier version of the NDAA. Rather than attempt to override that veto, that legislation was transferred to this particular bill to allow the NDAA a fresh opportunity to pass as its predecessors have for more than 50 consecutive years.

This process began when the House Armed Services Committee passed this bill on a bipartisan 60-2 vote. The committee's proposal matched the President’s request of $611.9 billion annually, and there are still $7.7 billion in authorizations outside of the Committee’s jurisdiction. While the President and the House agreed on an overall funding level, President Obama vetoed this legislation (which he had threatened to do for the past six years) as Congress didn't comply with his request to raise discretionary spending caps for domestic programs while boosting military spending. Once a budget agreement was reached, and Congress agreed to remove $5 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) portion of the NDAA, a deal was reached.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 authorized $600 billion in spending. While it first passed the House on a 325-98 vote in May 2014, the House and Senate could not agree on a final version until December 2014. That's all to say these lags are nothing new. In the end, the final version of the FY 2015 NDAA authorized $585 billion in total spending, $521.3 billion of which was discretionary spending, with $63.7 billion set aside for Overseas Contingency Operations.

Major critiques of the bill generally focus on less than transparent funding, which helped lead to the President's veto of its earlier version. The National Priorities Project explains: 

"Congress is ignoring its own budget caps by pouring money into a Pentagon slush fund with little oversight or accountability. The current proposal [allots] about $90 billion in off-the-books spending through the use of the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Fund – the war fund for Iraq and Afghanistan that has since become a catch-all slush fund for any Pentagon expenses that don’t fit within the caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. The OCO slush fund isn’t subject to budget caps, but that doesn’t stop it from contributing to the nation’s deficit."

On the other side, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) noted on the passage of this bill through committee: 

“This year’s NDAA will begin a process of much needed reform to the Department of Defense. These reforms are designed to recruit and retain America’s best and brightest, ensure that our forces maintain their technological edge, and to balance resources from the ‘tail’ to the ‘tooth’ of the force."

On the other side, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) noted on the passage of this bill through committee: 

“This year’s NDAA will begin a process of much needed reform to the Department of Defense. These reforms are designed to recruit and retain America’s best and brightest, ensure that our forces maintain their technological edge, and to balance resources from the ‘tail’ to the ‘tooth’ of the force."


Roughly $4 billion in savings would be gained from using un-obligated funds and eliminating a foreign currency fluctuation account that stored excess funds. No longer paying an excessive base price for fuel is projected to save $1.6 billion.

A development project for a long-range strike bomber would receive $460 million less in fiscal year 2016, most of which it would’ve been unable to spend in that period due to contract delays. The program that funds the Air Force’s tanker would be funded at a level $224 million lower than anticipated, which is the maximum level the Air Force can actually spend in fiscal year. Because the A-10 Warthog would still be operational under this legislation, $79.6 million in training expenses would be saved by delaying the Air Force’s transition from the A-10 to the F-15E.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Flickr user Massachusetts National Guard)