Defense budget process is broken and needs a fix.

Members of Congress involved in the annual authorization and appropriations process for the Department of Defense take their responsibilities--as spelled out in Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution, to "... provide for the common defense ..."--very seriously. Although there are always disagreements on specific programs and funding levels, there is agreement that the legislation must be passed in a timely manner each year to provide for our military forces.

Unfortunately, for the past several years the process has stumbled along. Only at nearly the last possible minute has Congress completed action. This may be the first year in recent history when the process breaks down entirely.

The annual defense authorization process is required for several major issues, such as military personnel levels, pay raises and construction--all of which must be specifically authorized by law each year. The authorization bill also sets funding levels for all procurement, research and development, operations and maintenance, health care, and other military requirements.

The appropriations bill must be passed prior to the end of each fiscal year--September 30th--or operations must cease, as happened briefly in 1995. To avoid shutdowns, Congress usually passes a continuing resolution, allowing an agency to continue operations, but only at the previous year's level.

This is the way the process is supposed to work: The president sends his proposed budget to Congress usually in late January or early February: Authorization and appropriations committees of the House and Senate review the budget, hold hearings and recommend changes.

Then, the armed services committees of both houses present their recommendations--called authorizations--to the full House and Senate for approval. After that takes place, the appropriations committees present their recommendations.

Once approved by each chamber of Congress, the armed services and appropriation committees meet separately in conference committees to work out the differences in each set of recommendations.

This year, both the defense authorization and appropriations expected a quick resolution because of the urgent needs of the military, which is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the process has bogged down yet again in a political swamp that may not be escapable. This is how it happened:

On February 7th, the president presented his 2006 defense budget to Congress, requesting $419.3 billion, a 4.8 percent increase over 2005.

On May 19th, the House Armed Services Committee approved $441.6 billion and included an additional $49.1 billion emergency supplemental funding for the wars.

On May 25th, the full House approved the committee's recommendations.

On June 7th, the House Appropriations Committee appropriated $363.7 billion, excluding military construction, which is provided separately, and adding another $45.3 billion in emergency supplemental funding.

On June 20th, the full House approved that committee's recommendations.

Under the constitution, all funding bills must originate in the House. Thus, the Senate must wait for the House to act. The Senate Armed Services Committee on May 13th approved $441.6 billion for defense, including $50 billion for wartime operations.

The full Senate began its deliberations in early July, but quickly mired itself in a plethora of controversial amendments. Examples included amendments that would have rolled back proposals of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission and set new rules for military handling of captured terrorists or insurgents.

Because the Senate leadership could not reach an agreement on the number of amendments and a time limitation, the Senate authorization bill was pulled from the floor until after the August congressional recess. At that time, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed to not bring the defense appropriations bill to the Senate floor until after passage of the authorization bill.

When the Senate returned from the August recess, efforts to bring the authorization bill to the Senate floor were unsuccessful, due in part to still-pending amendments and other pressing business. This included emergency funding for hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the nomination of the new chief justice.

To continue federal operations after September 30th, Congress passed a continuing resolution until November 18th.

On September 28th the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $440.2 billion in new spending authority for the Pentagon, including $50 billion for contingency operations. That recommendation is $7 billion under the president's request of $397.2 billion and $939 million below the 2005 figure.

Early in October, the Senate began consideration of the appropriations bill, even though the authorization bill had not been completed. As options began to run out to bring up the authorization bill, there was an attempt to attach, as an amendment, the entire authorization bill to the pending appropriations bill--a procedure that has never been attempted previously. This procedure was defeated on a 49-50 vote.

This leaves the authorization bill in limbo in the Senate. Meanwhile, one of the controversial amendments, the new rules for U.S. military's treatment of prisoners, was attached successfully to the appropriations measure.

As National Defense goes to press, there is still no foreseeable solution for the passage of the authorization bill. The need to authorize the military pay raise, troop levels and military construction still remains. The conference on the appropriations bill needs to be concluded, and the bill sent to the president for signature prior to the expiration of the continuing resolution on November 18th. The White House announced earlier in the year that the president had been advised to veto the appropriations bill if the military prisoners amendment was included.

In a process that should be completed in a matter of a few months, we are now nine months along this year--with an outcome that, at this time, is uncertain. At a time when our war-fighters need quick action to sustain their efforts in the war on terrorism, Congress needs to remember its charter and quickly and adequately "provide for the common defense."

NDIA GOVERNMENT POLICY

Peter M. Steffes Vice President, Government Policy [e-mail]

Ruth W. Franklin Director, Procurement [e-mail]

Ann Stockwell Director, International Trade Policy and Programs [e-mail]

Chandra Burnside Analyst, Government Policy [e-mail]

Meredith Kyttle Government Policy Staff [e-mail]