Homeland Security Digital Library

Homeland Security Digital Library

SEARCH THE HSDL

Advanced search Help

Searching for terms: EXACT: "McGarry, Brendan W." in: author

Set an Alert to get future results

Results 31 - 60 (of 76) sorted by relevance sort by date

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status [Updated September 6, 2019]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Congressional interest in Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funding has continued as Members debate ways of funding priorities without breaching discretionary spending limits set in law. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has appropriated $2 trillion in discretionary budget authority designated as 'emergency requirements or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism' (OCO/GWOT) in support of the broad U.S. government response to the 9/11 attacks and for other related international affairs activities. This figure amounts to 9.5% of total discretionary spending during this period. [...] While there is no overall statutory limit on the amount of emergency or OCO/GWOT spending, both Congress and the President have fundamental roles in determining how much of the spending to provide each fiscal year."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McGarry, Brendan W.; Morgenstern, Emily M.

2019-09-06
Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status [Updated January 15, 2019]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This report provides background information and potential oversight issues for Congress on warrelated and other international emergency or contingency-designated funding since FY2001. [...] This CRS [Congressional Research Service] report is meant to serve as a reference on certain funding designated as emergency requirements or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT), as well as related budgetary and policy issues. It does not provide an estimate of war costs within the OCO/GWOT account (all of which may not be for activities associated with war or defense) or such costs in the DOD base budget or other agency funding (which may be related to war activities, such as the cost of health care for combat veterans)."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McGarry, Brendan W.; Epstein, Susan B.

2019-01-15
Defense Primer: Navigating the NDAA [Updated January 29, 2020]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has a legacy of regular passage. FY2020 marked the 59th consecutive year for which an annual defense authorization was enacted. Many defense policymakers and officials see the bill as a reliable legislative vehicle for a range of policy matters. In recent years, the NDAA has included several hundred pages of policy provisions and annual authorizations of appropriations in excess of $700 billion. Unlike an appropriations bill, the NDAA does not provide budget authority for the Department of Defense (DOD). Instead, the NDAA establishes or continues defense programs, policies, projects, or activities at DOD and other federal agencies, and provides guidance on how the appropriated funds are to be used in carrying out those authorized activities. This primer provides an overview of the structure and organization of the NDAA."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McGarry, Brendan W.; Heitshusen, Valerie

2020-01-29
FY2021 Military Construction Appropriations: An Overview of Division J of P.L. 116-260 [February 26, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "On December 27, 2020, then-President Donald Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260), which included as Division J the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021. Division J provided funding to support the Department of Defense's (DOD) military installations and housing portfolio. [...] Division J provided $8.41 billion in discretionary budget authority for DOD military construction (MILCON) projects, family housing programs, and other activities. That figure includes funding for the base budget and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Excluding onetime natural disaster relief provided in FY2020 for projects to replace or rebuild infrastructure damaged by Hurricanes Florence and Michael, flooding and earthquakes, the FY2021 enacted level reflects a decrease of $3.55 billion (30%) from the FY2020 enacted level. The FY2021 enacted level is $0.25 billion (3%) more than the President's budget request."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McGarry, Brendan W.; Herrera, G. James

2021-02-26
Defense Primer: The NDAA Process [Updated February 16, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides authorization of appropriations for the Department of Defense (DOD), nuclear weapons programs of the Department of Energy, DOD elements of the Intelligence Community, and defense-related activities at other federal agencies. In addition to serving as an authorization of appropriations, the NDAA establishes defense policies and restrictions, and addresses organizational administrative matters related to the DOD. Unlike an appropriations bill, the NDAA does not provide budget authority for government activities. Nevertheless, historically it has provided a fairly reliable indicator of congressional sentiment on subsequent appropriations for particular programs. FY2021 was the 60th consecutive fiscal year for which a defense authorization was enacted. This regular enactment of complex legislation for six decades depends upon close adherence to process and consistency in procedures, schedules, and protocols."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Heitshusen, Valerie; McGarry, Brendan W.

2021-02-16
U.S. Military Withdrawal and Taliban Takeover in Afghanistan: Frequently Asked Questions [Updated August 27, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "On August 15, 2021, the Taliban entered the Afghan capital of Kabul, completing a rapid takeover over the country with a speed that surprised many Afghans and Americans alike. The Taliban's advance came as the United States was completing the military withdrawal to which it agreed in the February 2020 U.S.-Taliban accord. The fall of the elected Afghan government, supported by billions of dollars in U.S. assistance over the course of nearly two decades, raises significant questions about past, present, and future U.S. policy for Members of Congress. This report provides material related to select questions associated with U.S. policy in Afghanistan, including [1] Background information useful for understanding the current situation in Afghanistan; [2] The Taliban takeover and Afghan government's collapse; [3] U.S. policy implications of the Taliban takeover; [4] Social and economic implications of the Taliban takeover; [5] Regional reactions to the Taliban's takeover; [6] U.S. military operations; [7] Evacuation of U.S. citizens and some Afghans; and [8] Budgetary implications of the U.S. withdrawal. [...] The report concludes with some strategic considerations Congress may wish to contemplate as it assesses the situation in Afghanistan and its implications for the future. [...] This report will be updated to reflect major changes in U.S. policy or developments in Afghanistan that may significantly affect U.S. decisions."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Thomas, Clayton (Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs); McGarry, Brendan W.; McInnis, Kathleen J. . . .

2021-08-27
U.S. Military Withdrawal and Taliban Takeover in Afghanistan: Frequently Asked Questions [August 20, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "On August 15, 2021, the Taliban entered the Afghan capital of Kabul, completing a rapid takeover over the country that surprised many Afghans and Americans alike. The Taliban's advance came as the United States was completing the military withdrawal to which it agreed in the February 2020 U.S.-Taliban accord. The fall of the elected Afghan government, supported by billions of dollars in U.S. assistance over the course of nearly two decades, raises significant questions about past, present, and future U.S. policy for Members of Congress. This report provides material related to select questions associated with U.S. policy in Afghanistan, including [1] Background information useful for understanding the current situation in Afghanistan; [2] The Taliban takeover and Afghan government's collapse; [3] U.S. policy implications of the Taliban takeover; [4] Social and economic implications of the Taliban takeover; [5] Regional reactions to the Taliban's takeover; [6] U.S. military operations; and [7] Budgetary implications of the U.S. withdrawal. Some additional lines of inquiry that Congress may wish to explore with the Executive Branch are included alongside specific topics as appropriate. The report concludes with some strategic considerations Congress may wish to contemplate as it assesses the situation in Afghanistan and its implications for the future."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Thomas, Clayton (Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs); McGarry, Brendan W.; McInnis, Kathleen J. . . .

2021-08-20
U.S. Military Withdrawal and Taliban Takeover in Afghanistan: Frequently Asked Questions [Updated September 17, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "On August 15, 2021, the Taliban entered the Afghan capital of Kabul, completing a rapid takeover over the country with a speed that surprised many Afghans and Americans alike. The Taliban's advance came as the United States was completing the military withdrawal to which it agreed in the February 2020 U.S.-Taliban accord. The U.S. military and diplomatic withdrawal and evacuation operation concluded on August 30, 2021, with the departure of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. The fall of the elected Afghan government, which had been supported by billions of dollars in U.S. assistance over the course of nearly two decades, raises significant questions about past, present, and future U.S. policy for Members of Congress. This report provides material related to select questions associated with U.S. policy in Afghanistan[.] [...] The report concludes with some strategic considerations Congress may wish to contemplate as it assesses the situation in Afghanistan and its implications for the future."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Thomas, Clayton (Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs); McGarry, Brendan W.; McInnis, Kathleen J. . . .

2021-09-17
United States European Command: Overview and Key Issues [Updated August 4, 2020]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "United States European Command (or EUCOM, pronounced 'YEW-com') is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, and was established in 1952. Today its area of responsibility comprises 51 countries stretching from Portugal's Azores Islands to Iceland and Israel. USEUCOM's commander is currently U.S. Air Force General Tod Wolters, who is simultaneously the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR). During the Cold War, the European theater was a primary focus for U.S. defense and national security and EUCOM was focused almost exclusively on deterring, and if necessary defeating, the Soviet Union. At the height of the Cold War, there were more than 400,000 U.S. troops stationed in Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a withdrawal of the bulk of forward-deployed U.S. troops in the European theater. Decisions to do so were arguably based on a number of strategic assumptions held by successive administrations after the end of the Cold War, including that Europe could be stable, whole, and free; Russia could be a constructive partner in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture; and particularly prior to September 11, 2001, threats posed by terrorism and migration from the Middle East/North Africa region were limited."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McInnis, Kathleen J.; McGarry, Brendan W.

2020-08-04
United States Central Command [Updated March 30, 2022]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has command authority over U.S. forces in the Middle East and West/Central Asia. CENTCOM was formally established by the Department of Defense (DOD) on January 1, 1983. Its area of responsibility (AOR) comprises Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, West Bank & Gaza, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Oman, Yemen, Israel, Iran, Turkmenistan, Lebanon, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. CENTCOM is headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) in Tampa, FL. [...] The Trump and Biden Administrations both described the need to effectively contend--economically, diplomatically, and militarily--with China and Russia as the key national security challenge facing the United States. Accordingly, activities vis-a-vis China and Russia would potentially be prioritized over other strategic challenges that have been prominent in the CENTCOM AOR, including deterring Iranian aggression and countering violent extremist groups such as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Some observers maintain that a shift in U.S. resources and focus away from the CENTCOM AOR and toward Europe and Asia is advisable for several reasons. These include the reprioritization of military resources that, according to some, might be better applied to challenges in Europe--especially in the wake of Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine--or the Indo-Pacific; skepticism about whether continued investments, presence, and operations in the region would result in strategic gains; and the growing threat posed by U.S. strategic competitors such as Russia and China."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McInnis, Kathleen J.; McGarry, Brendan W.

2022-03-30
United States European Command: Overview and Key Issues [Updated March 30, 2022]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "United States European Command (or EUCOM, pronounced 'YEW-com') is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, and was established in 1952. USEUCOM's commander, U.S. Air Force General Tod D. Wolters, is simultaneously the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR). During the Cold War, the European theater was a primary focus for U.S. defense and national security and EUCOM was focused almost exclusively on deterring, and if necessary defeating, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. At the height of the Cold War, there were more than 400,000 U.S. troops stationed in Europe. [...] Over the past 25 years, decisions regarding U.S. basing and posture in the European theater were designed to support expeditionary and cooperative security operations. The bulk of U.S. forces in Europe have been withdrawn and many bases and outposts were either consolidated or closed. However, two Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) were retained (in Italy and Germany) as were some naval bases, particularly those along NATO's south, and a number of Air Force bases that were deemed critical for supporting operations in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. [...] On February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a 'special military operation' to protect the civilian population and to 'demilitarize' and 'de-Nazify' Ukraine (the latter term understood by many observers as a false pretext for overthrowing the democratically elected Ukrainian government). According to DOD, an additional 15,000 U.S. soldiers have deployed to Europe since early February 2022 to augment defense and deterrence efforts, bringing the total U.S. force posture in Europe, including permanently stationed forces, to approximately 100,000 military personnel."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McInnis, Kathleen J.; McGarry, Brendan W.; Belkin, Paul

2022-03-30
United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) [Updated March 30, 2022]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), headquartered in Miami-Dade County, FL, was officially established in 1963. Prior to that, U.S. military elements in the Western hemisphere had been organized under the U.S. Caribbean Defense Command. SOUTHCOM's area of responsibility (AOR) begins at the southern Mexican border and contains the remaining elements of Central and South America, adjacent Atlantic and Pacific waters, and the Caribbean Sea, ultimately encompassing 31 countries and 16 dependencies and areas of special sovereignty. The region represents about one-sixth of the landmass of the world assigned to regional unified commands. SOUTHCOM is led by U.S. Army General Laura Richardson." This In Focus goes on to discuss the following elements related to SOUTHCOM: "National Strategic Priorities"; "The Evolving Geopolitical Context of the Southern Hemisphere"; "Strategic Challenges"; "Subcomponents"; and "Funding."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McInnis, Kathleen J.; McGarry, Brendan W.

2022-03-30
United States European Command: Overview and Key Issues [Updated February 13, 2020]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the History: "The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a withdrawal of the bulk of forward-deployed U.S. troops in the European theater. Decisions to do so were arguably based on a number of strategic assumptions held by successive administrations after the end of the Cold War, including that: [1] Europe could be stable, whole, and free; [2] Russia could be a constructive partner in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture; and [3] particularly prior to September 11, 2001, threats posed by terrorism and migration from the Middle East/North Africa region were limited. EUCOM [United States European Command] subsequently focused its activities on non-warfighting missions, including building the security capacity and capability of former Soviet bloc states, prosecuting 'crisis management' operations in the Balkans, and logistically supporting other combatant commands (by providing, in particular, critical medical evacuation facilities at Landstuhl), including U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). Over the past 25 years, decisions regarding U.S. basing and posture in the European theater have largely reflected these assumptions. The bulk of U.S. forces in Europe have been withdrawn and many bases and outposts were either consolidated or closed. However, two Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) were retained (in Italy and Germany) as were some naval bases, particularly those along NATO's southern flank, and a number of Air Force bases that were deemed critical for supporting operations in the Middle East, Africa and Europe."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McInnis, Kathleen J.; McGarry, Brendan W.

2020-02-13
United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) [March 17, 2020]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), headquartered in Miami, FL, was officially established in 1963. Prior to that, U.S. military elements in the Western hemisphere had been organized under the U.S. Caribbean Defense Command. SOUTHCOM's area of responsibility (AOR) begins at the southern Mexican border and contains the remaining elements of Central and South America, adjacent Atlantic and Pacific waters, as well as the Caribbean Sea, ultimately encompassing 31 countries and 16 dependencies and areas of special sovereignty. The region represents about one-sixth of the landmass of the world assigned to regional unified commands. SOUTHCOM is led by U.S. Navy Admiral Craig S. Faller."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McInnis, Kathleen J.; McGarry, Brendan W.

2020-03-17
United States Central Command [February 13, 2020]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "According to the U.S. Unified Command Plan, the Department of Defense (DOD) document that articulates the division of operational responsibilities amongst the 11 Combatant Commands (CoCOMs), United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has command authority over U.S. forces in the Middle East and West/Central Asia. CENTCOM was formally established by DOD on January 1, 1983. Its area of responsibility (AOR) comprises Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Yemen, Iran, Turkmenistan, Lebanon, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Accordingly, its geography spans more than 4 million square miles and is populated by more than 550 million people from 22 ethnic groups, speaking 18 languages with hundreds of dialects and professing multiple religions that transcend national borders. Headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) in Tampa, Florida, CENTCOM is commanded by Marine Corps General Kenneth F. McKenzie, who previously served as the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy in the Joint Staff."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McInnis, Kathleen J.; McGarry, Brendan W.

2020-02-13
Defense Primer: Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Process [Updated May 20, 2022]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Introduction: "Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) is the Department of Defense (DOD) process for allocating resources among the armed services, defense agencies, and other components. The annual process serves as the framework for DOD civilian and military leaders to decide which programs and force management requirements to fund based on strategic objectives. This product describes a notional PPBE process from the perspective of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). In practice, aspects of the process may differ based on current events or leadership preferences. [...] The process is designed to produce DOD's portion of the President's annual budget request to Congress, as well as updates to the department's five-year spending plan, known as the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). PPBE is one of DOD's three main acquisition-related decision support systems, along with the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) for developing requirements to address capability gaps and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) for managing acquisition programs."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McGarry, Brendan W.; Williams, Lynn M.

2022-05-20
Defense Primer: Department of Defense Unfunded Priorities [November 9, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Introduction: "Department of Defense (DOD) unfunded priorities generally refer to reports submitted to Congress pursuant to 'United States Code' provisions (10 U.S.C. §222a and 10 U.S.C. §222b) listing military programs, activities, or mission requirements that were not included in the President's annual budget request but that the department would fund with additional appropriations. The highest-ranking officers of the U.S. military services, combatant commands (COCOMs), and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) submit the reports, which are sometimes called unfunded priorities lists or unfunded requirements. Some observers have described DOD unfunded priorities as 'wish lists' that reduce budget discipline and increase unnecessary spending. Others have described them as 'risk lists' that identify items intended to support strategic objectives. For FY2022, DOD identified $23.85 billion in unfunded priorities, according to CRS [Congressional Research Service] analysis of the documents. Congress is debating whether to increase funding in FY2022 defense authorization and appropriation legislation, in part to fund DOD unfunded priorities."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Trujillo, Maureen; McGarry, Brendan W.

2021-11-09
Defense Primer: Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Process [Updated December 22, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Introduction: "Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) is the Department of Defense (DOD) process for allocating resources among the armed services, defense agencies, and other components. The annual process serves as the framework for DOD civilian and military leaders to decide which programs and force management requirements to fund based on strategic objectives. This product describes a notional PPBE process from the perspective of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). In practice, aspects of the process may differ based on current events or leadership preferences. DOD Directive 7045.14 states that PPBE serves as the annual resource allocation process for the department over a multi-year planning cycle. According to the directive, the objective of the process is 'to provide the DOD with the most effective mix of forces, equipment, manpower, and support attainable within fiscal constraints.' Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3100.01E describes the process as the Secretary of Defense's 'institutional strategic planning system and the primary decision-making process for translating strategic guidance into resource allocation decisions.' The process is designed to produce DOD's portion of the President's annual budget request to Congress, as well as updates to the department's five-year spending plan known as the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP)."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McGarry, Brendan W.; Williams, Lynn M.

2021-12-22
Defense Primer: DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities [Updated December 21, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "In provisions of the 'U.S. Code' and typically on an annual basis through authorization and appropriations acts, Congress provides the Department of Defense (DOD) limited authority to obligate funds for purposes other than originally approved. These authorities allow the department to 'transfer' or 'reprogram funds'. A transfer involves shifting funds from one appropriations account to another, while a reprogramming involves shifting funds within the same account. DOD uses the term 'reprogramming action' to describe both types of transactions."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McGarry, Brendan W.

2021-12-21
Defense Primer: Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) [Updated December 15, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Background: "The Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) is a projection of the forces, resources, and programs to support Department of Defense (DOD) operations. The FYDP is compiled every year and typically completed during the 'programming' phase of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process. The projection is updated during the 'budgeting' phase to reflect DOD's final funding decisions presented in the annual President's budget request. The FYDP reflects the planned allocation of DOD resources to major strategic efforts over a multiyear period. According to the department's Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) Structure Handbook, the FYDP is intended in part to link DOD's internal review structure for programs with Congress's review structure for resources, including funding. The FYDP projects DOD funding, manpower, and force structure needs over a five-year period. The projection is typically depicted with defense resources for the two previous fiscal years and force structure estimates for the three subsequent fiscal years. For example, the FY2021 FYDP reflects FY2019 and FY2020 appropriations, the current budget year estimate (FY2021) as part of the five-year program (FY2021-FY2025), and the estimated force structure through FY2028."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McGarry, Brendan W.; Peters, Heidi M.

2021-12-15
FY2022 NDAA: Overseas Contingency Operations [January 14, 2022]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress provided funding designated for emergency requirements and later for Overseas Contingency Operations [hyperlink]/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT) to support U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other countries, in addition to other activities. When statutory spending limits were enacted as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 [hyperlink] (BCA; P.L. [Public Law] 112-25), the law specified OCO/GWOT funding would be exempt [hyperlink] from the limits. Some observers argued OCO funding allowed for flexible response to contingencies, and provided a 'safety valve' [hyperlink] to the spending caps. Others described OCO as a loophole [hyperlink]--evolving from an account for replacing combat losses of equipment, resupplying expended munitions, and transporting troops through war zones, to a 'slush fund' [hyperlink] for activities unrelated to contingency operations (e.g., planned or regularly occurring costs to man, train, and equip the military force typically requested in the base budget of the Department of Defense). The BCA discretionary spending limits expired [hyperlink] in FY2021. The FY2022 President's budget request was the first in a decade not subject to the BCA caps. The budget proposed [hyperlink] discontinuing 'requests for Overseas Contingency Operations as a separate funding category, instead funding direct war costs and enduring operations in the DOD base budget.'"

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McGarry, Brendan W.

2022-01-14
FY2022 NDAA: Budgetary Context [November 10, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Congressional consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (NDAA; H.R. 4350 and S. 2792) occurs as federal spending is projected to continue to exceed revenues. This trend raises questions about whether pressure to reduce the federal deficit may affect defense budget plans. In July 2021, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected [hyperlink] a federal deficit of $3.0 trillion for FY2021, or 13.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That percentage would be the second-highest since 1945. CBO attributed the size of the projected deficit in part to 'the economic disruption caused by the 2020-2021 coronavirus pandemic and the legislation enacted in response.' CBO projects spending will continue to exceed revenues over the next decade ('Figure 1'). From FY2022 to FY2031, CBO projects discretionary defense outlays will increase 23% and nondefense discretionary outlays 6%, while mandatory outlays will increase 40% and net interest payments on the national debt 198%."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McGarry, Brendan W.; Lynch, Megan Suzanne

2021-11-10
Defense Primer: Defense Working Capital Funds [Updated December 2, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "Since 1870, the U.S. military has operated various types of working capital funds to procure and provide materiel and commercial products and services to its forces. Codified today under Title 10, Section 2208, of the 'United States Code' (U.S.C.), a defense working capital fund (DWCF) is a type of 'revolving fund' that is intended to operate as a self-supporting entity to fund business-like activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) (e.g., acquiring parts and supplies, maintaining equipment, transporting personnel, conducting research and development). DWCF transactions move hundreds of billions of dollars within DOD annually."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Herrera, G. James; McGarry, Brendan W.

2021-12-02
Defense Primer: The NDAA Process [Updated December 6, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides authorization of appropriations for the Department of Defense (DOD), nuclear weapons programs of the Department of Energy, and other defense-related activities. In addition to serving as an authorization of appropriations, the NDAA establishes defense policies and restrictions, and addresses organizational administrative matters related to the DOD. Unlike an appropriations bill, the NDAA does not provide budget authority for government activities. Nevertheless, historically it has provided a fairly reliable indicator of congressional sentiment on subsequent appropriations for particular programs. FY2021 was the 60th consecutive fiscal year for which a defense authorization was enacted. (As of the date of this publication, Congress has not passed an FY2022 NDAA.) This regular enactment of legislation for six decades depends upon adherence to process and consistency in procedures, schedules, and protocols."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Heitshusen, Valerie; McGarry, Brendan W.

2021-12-06
Defense Primer: Navigating the NDAA [Updated December 6, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has a legacy of regular passage. FY2021 marked the 60th consecutive year for which an annual defense authorization was enacted. Many defense policymakers and officials see the bill as a reliable legislative vehicle for a range of policy matters. The FY2021 NDAA (P.L. [Public Law] 116-283) included 1,482pages [sic] of policy provisions and discretionary authorizations totaling $731.6 billion. Unlike an appropriations bill, the NDAA does not provide budget authority for the Department of Defense (DOD). Instead, the NDAA establishes or continues defense programs, policies, projects, or activities at DOD and other federal agencies, and provides guidance on how the appropriated funds are to be used in carrying out those authorized activities. This primer provides an overview of the structure and organization of the NDAA."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McGarry, Brendan W.; Heitshusen, Valerie

2021-12-06
Defense Primer: Procurement [Updated December 9, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Appropriations for Procurement: "The Department of Defense (DOD) procurement appropriations title provides funds for non-construction-related 'investment costs'--the costs to acquire capital assets, such as an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft or a Virginia-class submarine. Investment costs are distinguished from expenses--the costs of resources consumed in operating the department, such as food and fuel. [...] The FY2022 President's budget request included $132.5 billion in procurement funding for DOD. The budget submission discontinued requests for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) as a separate funding category for various appropriations accounts, including procurement-related accounts."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Peters, Heidi M.; McGarry, Brendan W.

2021-12-09
Defense Primer: Defense Appropriations Process [Updated December 7, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse in Article I, Section 9, which provides that 'No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.' To fulfill this duty, Congress annually considers appropriations measures, which provide funding for numerous activities--such as national defense, education, and homeland security-- consistent with policies and priorities established through legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act. The congressional appropriations process includes various rules and practices that Congress has adopted to distinguish appropriations measures and facilitate their consideration. These measures generally provide funding authority in response to the President's budget request for a fiscal year (October 1 throughSeptember 30)."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Saturno, James; McGarry, Brendan W.

2021-12-07
COVID-19: The Basics of Domestic Defense Response [Updated March 26, 2020]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "As the COVID [coronavirus disease]-19 pandemic has unfolded, Congress has considered how the Department of Defense (DOD) might support the U.S. government's domestic response. Below are the funding, authorities, and descriptions of potential ways DOD might further contribute. Links in this product connect to more detailed information on the highlighted subjects. President Donald J. Trump declared a U.S. national emergency on March 13, 2020. On Friday, March 20, the Federal Emergency Management Agency assumed the lead agency role in the Coronavirus Task Force under the National Response Framework (NRF) for national emergencies. DOD participates in the national response within the NRF."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Vassalotti, Michael J.; Cecire, Michael H.; Kapp, Lawrence . . .

2020-03-26
COVID-19: The Basics of Domestic Defense Response [Updated April 3, 2020]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "As the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic has unfolded, Congress has considered how the Department of Defense (DOD) might support the U.S. government's domestic response. Below are the funding, authorities, and descriptions of potential ways DOD might further contribute. Links in this product connect to more detailed information on the highlighted subjects. President Donald J. Trump declared a U.S. national emergency on March 13, 2020. On Friday, March 20, the Federal Emergency Management Agency assumed the lead agency role in the Coronavirus Task Force under the National Response Framework (NRF) for national emergencies. DOD participates in the national response within the NRF."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Vassalotti, Michael J.; Cecire, Michael H.; Kapp, Lawrence . . .

2020-04-03
Defense Primer: The NDAA Process [Updated January 6, 2021]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides authorization of appropriations for the Department of Defense (DOD), nuclear weapons programs of the Department of Energy, DOD elements of the Intelligence Community, and defense-related activities at other federal agencies. In addition to serving as an authorization of appropriations, the NDAA establishes defense policies and restrictions, and addresses organizational administrative matters related to the DOD. Unlike an appropriations bill, the NDAA does not provide budget authority for government activities. Nevertheless, historically it has provided a fairly reliable indicator of congressional sentiment on subsequent appropriations for particular programs. FY2021 was the 60th consecutive fiscal year for which a defense authorization was enacted. This regular enactment of complex legislation for six decades depends upon close adherence to process and consistency in procedures, schedules, and protocols."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Heitshusen, Valerie; McGarry, Brendan W.

2021-01-06

1 2 3