Commission on PPBE Reform’s Congressional Language

S. 1605 — National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022

SEC. 1004. Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform.

(a) Establishment.–

(1) In general.–There is hereby established an independent commission in the legislative branch to be known as the “Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform” (in this section referred to as the “Commission”).

(2) Date of establishment.–The Commission shall be established not later 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Membership.–

(1) Number and appointment.–The Commission shall be composed of 14 civilian individuals not employed by the Federal Government who are recognized experts and have relevant professional experience one or more of the following:

(A) Matters relating to the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process of the Department of Defense.

(B) Innovative budgeting and resource allocation methods of the private sector.

(D) Budget or program execution data analysis.

(2) Members.–The members shall be appointed as follows:

(A) The Secretary of Defense shall appoint two members.

(B) The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate shall each appoint one member.

(D) The Chair and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate shall each appoint one member.

(E) The Chair and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives shall each appoint one member.

(F) The Chair and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate shall each appoint one member.

(G) The Chair and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives shall each appoint one member.

(3) Deadline for appointment.–Not later than 30 days after the date described in subsection (a)(2), members shall be appointed to the Commission.

(4) Expiration of appointment authority.–The authority to make appointments under this subsection shall expire on the date described in subsection (a)(2), and the number of members of the Commission shall be reduced by the number equal to the number of appointments so not made.

(d) Period of Appointment and Vacancies.–Members shall be appointed for the term of the Commission. A vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers and shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made.

(e) Purpose.–The purpose of the Commission is to–

(1) examine the effectiveness of the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process and adjacent practices of the Department of Defense, particularly with respect to facilitating defense modernization;

(2) consider potential alternatives to such process and practices to maximize the ability of the Department of Defense to respond in a timely manner to current and future threats; and

(3) make legislative and policy recommendations to improve such process and practices in order to field the operational capabilities necessary to outpace near-peer competitors, provide data and analytical insight, and support an integrated budget that is aligned with strategic defense objectives.

(f) Scope and Duties.–The Commission shall perform the following duties:

(1) Compare the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process of the Department of Defense, including the development and production of documents including the Defense Planning Guidance (described in section 113(g) of title 10, United States Code), the Program Objective Memorandum, and the Budget Estimate Submission, with similar processes of private industry, other Federal agencies, and other countries.

(2) Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the efficacy and efficiency of all phases and aspects of the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process, which shall include an assessment of–

(A) the roles of Department officials and the timelines to complete each such phase or aspect;

(B) the structure of the budget of Department of Defense, including the effectiveness of categorizing the budget by program, appropriations account, major force program, budget activity, and line item, and whether this structure supports modern warfighting requirements for speed, agility, iterative development, testing, and fielding;

(C) a review of how the process supports joint efforts, capability and platform lifecycles, and transitioning technologies to production;

(D) the timelines, mechanisms, and systems for presenting and justifying the budget of Department of Defense, monitoring program execution and Department of Defense budget execution, and developing requirements and performance metrics;

(E) a review of the financial management systems of the Department of Defense, including policies, procedures, past and planned investments, and recommendations related to replacing, modifying, and improving such systems to ensure that such systems and related processes of the Department result in–

(i) effective internal controls;

(ii) the ability to achieve auditable financial statements; and

(iii) the ability to meet other financial management and operational needs; and

(F) a review of budgeting methodologies and strategies of near-peer competitors to understand if and how such competitors can address current and future threats more or less successfully than the United States.

(3) Develop and propose recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process.

(g) Commission Report and Recommendations.–

(1) Interim report.–Not later than February 6, 2023, the Commission shall submit to the Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees an interim report including the following:

(A) An examination of the development of the documents described in subsection (f)(1).

(B) An analysis of the timelines involved in developing an annual budget request and the future-years defense program (as described in section 221 of title 10, United States Code), including the ability to make changes to such request or such program within those timelines.

(C) A review of the sufficiency of the civilian personnel workforce in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to conduct budgetary and program evaluation analysis.

(D) An examination of efforts by the Department of Defense to develop new and agile programming and budgeting to enable the United States to more effectively counter near-peer competitors.

(E) A review of the frequency and sufficiency of budget and program execution analysis, to include any existing data analytics tools and any suggested improvements.

(F) Recommendations for internal reform to the Department relating to the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process for the Department of Defense to make internally.

(G) Recommendations for reform to the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process that require statutory changes.

(H) Any other matters the Commission considers appropriate.

(2) Final report.–Not later than September 1, 2023, the Commission shall submit to the Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees a final report that includes the elements required under paragraph (1).

(3) Briefings.–Not later than 180 days after the date specified in subsection (a)(2), and not later than 30 days after each of the interim and final reports are submitted, the Commission shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on the status of the review and assessment conducted under subsection (f) and include a discussion of any interim or final recommendations.

(4) Form.–The reports submitted to Congress under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.

(h) Government Cooperation.–

(1) Cooperation.–In carrying out its duties, the Commission shall receive the full and timely cooperation of the Secretary of Defense in providing the Commission with analysis, briefings, and other information necessary for the fulfillment of its responsibilities.

(2) Liaison.–The Secretary shall designate at least one officer or employee of the Department of Defense to serve as a liaison between the Department and the Commission.

(3) Detailees authorized.–The Secretary may provide, and the Commission may accept and employ, personnel detailed from the Department of Defense, without reimbursement.

(4) Facilitation.–

(A) Independent, non-government institute.–Not later than 45 days after the date specified in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of Defense shall make available to the Commission the services of an independent, nongovernmental organization, described under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and which is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code, which has recognized credentials and expertise in national security and military affairs, in order to facilitate the discharge of the duties of the Commission under this section.

(B) Federally funded research and development center.–On request of the Commission, the Secretary of Defense shall make available the services of a federally funded research and development center in order to enhance the discharge of the duties of the Commission under this section.

(i) Staff.–

(1) Status as federal employees.–Notwithstanding the requirements of section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, including the required supervision under subsection (a)(3) of such section, the members of the commission shall be deemed to be Federal employees.

(2) Executive director.–The Commission shall appoint and fix the rate of basic pay for an Executive Director in accordance with section 3161(d) of title 5, United States Code.

(3) Pay.–The Executive Director, with the approval of the Commission, may appoint and fix the rate of basic pay for additional personnel as staff of the Commission in accordance with section 3161(d) of title 5, United States Code.

(j) Personal Services.–

(1) Authority to procure.–The Commission may–

(A) procure the services of experts or consultants (or of organizations of experts or consultants) in accordance with the provisions of section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; and

(B) pay in connection with such services the travel expenses of experts or consultants, including transportation and per diem in lieu of subsistence, while such experts or consultants are traveling from their homes or places of business to duty stations.

(2) Maximum daily pay rates.–The daily rate paid an expert or consultant procured pursuant to paragraph (1) may not exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

(k) Authority to Accept Gifts.–The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of services, goods, and property from non-Federal entities for the purposes of aiding and facilitating the work of the Commission. The authority in this subsection does not extend to gifts of money. Gifts accepted under this authority shall be documented, and conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest shall be avoided. Subject to the authority in this section, commissioners shall otherwise comply with rules set forth by the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate and the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives governing Senate and House employees.

(l) Legislative Advisory Committee.–The Commission shall operate as a legislative advisory committee and shall not be subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App) or section 552b, United States Code (commonly known as the Government in the Sunshine Act).

(m) Contracting Authority.–The Commission may acquire administrative supplies and equipment for Commission use to the extent funds are available.

(n) Use of Government Information.–The Commission may secure directly from any department or agency of the Federal Government such information as the Commission considers necessary to carry out its duties. Upon such request of the chair of the Commission, the head of such department or agency shall furnish such information to the Commission.

(o) Postal Services.–The Commission may use the United States mail in the same manner and under the same conditions as departments and agencies of the United States.

(p) Space for Use of Commission.–Not later than 30 days after the establishment date of the Commission, the Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Commission, shall identify and make available suitable excess space within the Federal space inventory to house the operations of the Commission. If the Administrator is not able to make such suitable excess space available within such 30-day period, the Commission may lease space to the extent the funds are available.

(q) Removal of Members.–A member may be removed from the Commission for cause by the individual serving in the position responsible for the original appointment of such member under subsection (b)(1), provided that notice has first been provided to such member of the cause for removal and voted and agreed upon by three quarters of the members serving. A vacancy created by the removal of a member under this subsection shall not affect the powers of the Commission, and shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made.

(r) Termination.–The Commission shall terminate 180 days after the date on which it submits the final report required by subsection (g)(2).

FAS Statement on President’s Budget Request to Congress

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Federation of American Scientists Acting President Dan Correa released the following statement on President Joe Biden’s proposed $6 trillion budget request to Congress:

“With a global pandemic disrupting the world and highlighting both the strengths and liabilities of the United States’ economy and infrastructure, the Federation of American Scientists commends President Biden on putting forward a budget that would address critical needs, from childcare and paid leave to investing in electric vehicle charging stations. Foundational investments in roads, water pipes, broadband internet, and advanced manufacturing are key to helping our nation rebuild, enhancing national security, and supporting all Americans. Included in the President’s budget request is $7.5 billion to launch Advanced Research Project Agencies for health and climate, representing a generational investment in advancing innovative research and development. Further, the budget includes a $500 million investment in the Technology Modernization Fund, $300 million for research and development in technologies of the future, and an additional $750 million devoted towards upgrading the security of IT, which represent opportunities for the federal government to deliver services more effectively to the American people. The budget request includes a critical $8.7 billion investment to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help prepare for emerging global threats, a necessary national security priority.”

The Federation of American Scientists is committed to ensuring that insights from scientists and technologists are included at policymaking tables. For further information on modernizing technology in government, you can read Scaling Proven IT Modernization Strategies Across the Federal Government, a Day One Proposal by Ann Dunkin and Greg Godbout. For further information on delivering high-speed internet to rural communities, clean infrastructure development, investing in health research, and building a competitive workforce, you can read the Day One Project proposals to Prioritize Funding for High-Speed Internet Connectivity that Rural Communities Can Afford to Adopt by Caroline Stratton, a proposal on Revitalizing the DOE Loan Program Office to Support Clean Infrastructure Development by David Foster, Michael Kearney, and Chris Knittel, a proposal on Creating the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA) by Michael Stebbins and Geoff Ling, and a proposal on Responding to the COVID-19 Unemployment Crisis and Meeting the Future of Work Challenge by Marcus Courtney and Adam Bobrow.

###

Increasing equity and accessibility of research funds can help secure U.S. leadership in science

Just a small group of nationally-ranked universities are awarded the majority of federal research funding. In 2018, a study found that out of more than 600 colleges and universities that received federal funding for science and engineering research, about 22 percent received over 90 percent of the funds. The equity and accessibility of these funds was the focus of this week’s Senate Appropriations Committee hearing held to discuss the budget that could be allotted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2022. During the hearing, NSF director Sethuraman Panchanathan emphasized that addressing research disparities and establishing far-reaching partnerships were priorities for the agency.

Disparities in research funding

Disparities in research funding can greatly harm the ability of students to enter scientific careers, and diminish the potential of the country’s scientific workforce overall. The institutions that received over 90 percent of federal science funding in 2018 served only 43 percent of all students in the U.S., and only 34 percent of students from underrepresented groups. So two-thirds of underrepresented minorities and almost 70 percent of Pell grant recipients (who are undergraduates with “exceptional financial needs”) have more limited access to valuable opportunities to participate in scientific research. At the same time, researchers argue that incorporating diverse perspectives and talents leads to more innovative solutions, and that not including underrepresented minorities in science will only harm the U.S.’ competitiveness.

NSF’s most well-known program to address research funding disparities is the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). This program, which is now over 40 years old, partners with institutions of higher education to stimulate sustainable improvements in research and development capacity in specific states. States (as well as U.S. territories and DC) become eligible for EPSCoR funding if they receive 0.75 percent or less of total NSF research and related activities funding over the previous three years. Studies have shown that states with EPSCoR funding increase the quality of their universities’ publications, and that they become more competitive for future federal research funding competitions. However, more research needs to be done to fully assess the program’s impact.

Expanded access to research funding a priority for the Biden Administration

The Biden Administration has emphasized the importance of addressing research funding accessibility in the FY 2022 skinny budget request, which highlights the President’s top spending priorities for the next year in advance of the release of the full request for each agency. Specifically, President Biden is requesting $100 million for programs that “aim to increase participation in science and engineering of individuals from racial and ethnic groups, who are traditionally underrepresented in these fields.” This funding is intended to support increasing science and engineering research and education capacity at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), as well as research on recruitment and retention methods, mentorship programs, and curriculum development. Studies by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) have determined that this type of funding is critical to ensure the success of underrepresented minority students.

Director Panchanathan’s priorities for NSF

During the hearing, Director Panchanathan echoed (46:05) that more needs to be done to tap into the U.S.’ potential scientific talent. His two main priorities for NSF are to increase access to scientific research through regional innovation accelerators and to strengthen partnerships with other agencies, including the Department of Energy (DOE) and its national laboratories. The regional accelerators would rely on an expanded EPSCoR program, as well as support from other NSF directorates. NSF is also working to expand artificial intelligence (AI) research to every state to tap into as much talent as possible. Last year, NSF distributed grants to develop seven AI institutes which have operations in 20 different states. Director Panchanathan hopes (46:45) to expand this further in the coming years. This idea of widely-distributed hubs aligns with a new proposal from FAS’ Day One Project that suggests a path forward for the creation of innovation ecosystems that would launch new startup ideas and cultivate the next generation of research and development talent.

Regarding strengthening partnerships with DOE, NSF collaborates with the agency on a variety of programs, including the development of new algorithms to bolster the security and efficiency of modern power grids, the creation of collaborative robots to assist humans with a variety of tasks, and the advancement of basic plasma research and education. NSF historically focuses on basic research, while DOE, and its national labs in particular, drive the commercialization of new technologies. Director Panchanathan aims (1:22:06) to further develop relationships with the agency to more closely connect NSF’s basic research strengths with DOE’s expertise in technology transfer and ensuring cutting-edge research and technologies are commercialized in the U.S., instead of by other countries. By fostering closer cooperation between NSF and the other federal science agencies, the U.S. will be able to better compete with countries, such as China, that aim to supplant the U.S. as world leader in critical technology and science fields.

The future of research and development in the U.S.

Both the Biden Administration and Congress would like to accelerate science and engineering education and research to boost the U.S.’ domestic growth and global competitiveness. In the formulation of the FY 2022 federal budget for science funding, there will be more discussions on Capitol Hill about how to bolster the country’s expertise in high-priority fields such as AI, climate science, quantum computing, clean energy, and biotechnology, and harmonize the approaches of the executive and legislative branches. We encourage the CSPI community to get involved in future CSPI calls to action, and serve as a scientific resource for policymakers.

Pentagon Asks to Keep Future Spending Secret

Updated below

The Department of Defense is quietly asking Congress to rescind the requirement to produce an unclassified version of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) database.

Preparation of the unclassified FYDP, which provides estimates of defense spending for the next five years, has been required by law since 1989 (10 USC 221) and has become an integral part of the defense budget process.

But the Pentagon said that it should no longer have to offer such information in an unclassified format, according to a DoD legislative proposal for the pending FY 2021 national defense authorization act.

“The Department is concerned that attempting publication of unclassified FYDP data might inadvertently reveal sensitive information,” the Pentagon said in its March 6, 2020 proposal.

“With the ready availability of data mining tools and techniques, and the large volume of data on the Department’s operations and resources already available in the public domain, additional unclassified FYDP data, if it were released, potentially allows adversaries to derive sensitive information by compilation about the Department’s weapons development, force structure, and strategic plans.”

Therefore, DoD said, “This proposal would remove the statutory requirement to submit an Unclassified Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to the Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the Congressional Research Service.” It follows that FYDP data would also not be included in the published DoD budget request, as it typically has been in the past.

The DoD proposal would preserve a classified FYDP for Congress but it would repeal the requirement that DoD officials “certify that the data used to construct the FYDP is accurate.” DoD said that “This requirement is unnecessary as information from these systems is already used to provide the President’s Budget.”

The unclassified FYDP helps inform budget analysis

At a time when it is clear to everyone that US national security spending is poorly aligned with actual threats to the nation, the DoD proposal would make it even harder for Congress and the public to refocus and reconstruct the defense budget.

Without an unclassified FYDP, Congress and the public would be deprived of unclassified analyses like “Long-Term Implications of the 2020 Future Years Defense Program” produced last year by the Congressional Budget Office. Other public reporting by GAO, CRS, the news media and independent analysts concerning the FYDP and future defense spending would also be undermined.

Some information in the FYDP — such as projected intelligence spending — has always been deemed sensitive enough that it can be classified.

But most information in the FYDP is unclassified and is properly the subject of public oversight. So, for example, the recent FY2021 defense budget request for military construction includes an “FY21 FYDP Project List” identifying numerous proposed construction projects across the country and around the world that are anticipated through 2025.

DoD no longer publishes its legislative proposals

Until two years ago, DoD published its legislative proposals to Congress on the website of the DoD General Counsel. (The proposals for FY 2019 are still online.) But that is no longer the case. As part of a broader retreat from public oversight and accountability, the Pentagon today does not make its legislative proposals easily accessible to the public.

A copy of the current package of DoD legislative proposals through March 6, 2020 was obtained by Secrecy News. A complete tabulation of the dozens of specific proposals is available here. A section-by-section description of all of the proposals is here.

Among the current batch is a proposed exemption from the Freedom of Information Act for certain unclassified documents concerning military tactics, techniques, or procedures.

That very same proposed FOIA exemption has previously been rejected by Congress on at least four prior occasions. So legislative approval of such requests is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

Late last week, the House Armed Services Committee filed a preliminary version of the FY21 defense authorization act (HR 6395) based on the DoD legislative proposals. “When the Committee meets to consider the FY21 NDAA, the content of H.R. 6395 will be struck and replaced with subcommittee and full committee proposals,” according to a March 27 news release.

Update 1: On March 31, DoD posted its legislative proposals for the FY 21 defense authorization act.

Update 2: A DoD spokesman said the Pentagon’s proposal was not intended to limit public access to all future year spending data. “There will be no reduction in any currently provided information,” the spokesman said. See Pentagon denies it seeks to hide future budget information by Aaron Mehta, Defense News, April 3, 2020.

Tracking “Unobligated” Military Construction Funds

A new congressional tally of military construction projects that have unobligated fund balances turned up hundreds of current projects fitting that description. See “FY2017-2019 Military Construction Projects/Programs with Unobligated Balances.”

Because the President declared a national emergency, some of the funds for those military construction activities could be repurposed in order to pay for barriers along the border with Mexico, pursuant to 10 USC 2808.

Declaring that a national emergency exists made it possible “to secure additional resources” to construct barriers along the border, the Trump White House said on February 15.

The White House said that up to $3.6 billion in unobligated Department of Defense military construction funds would now “be available to build the border wall.”

Funds are said to be “obligated” as the result of a purchase, contract or other government action that incurs a legal obligation to pay them. Until that happens, they are “unobligated” even though they have been appropriated for a specific purpose.

There is a considerable amount of military construction money that has not been obligated.

“According to DOD information, the department reported unobligated balances in the military construction and family housing accounts totaling $13.3 billion at the end of FY2018,” the Congressional Research Service noted recently.

Even though the money may be legally available, it is not “free.”

“All of this money has been assigned for other purposes, so it really then comes to what can — what are you going to trade off, because when you say tradeoff, it really is a tradeoff,” said Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan on February 16.

The President’s declaration of national emergency faces a legislative challenge as well as pending litigation.

Accounting Board Okays Deceptive Budget Practices

Government agencies may remove or omit budget information from their public financial statements and may present expenditures that are associated with one budget line item as if they were associated with another line item in order to protect classified information, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board concluded last week.

Under the newly approved standard, government agencies may “modify information required by other [financial] standards” in their public financial statements, omit otherwise required information, and misrepresent the actual spending amounts associated with specific line items so that classified information will not be disclosed. (Accurate and complete accounts are to be maintained separately so that they may be audited in a classified environment.)

See Classified Activities, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 56, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, October 2018.

The new policy was favored by national security agencies as a prudent security measure, but it was opposed by some government overseers and accountants.

Allowing unacknowledged modifications to public financial statements “jeopardizes the financial statements’ usefulness and provides financial managers with an arbitrary method of reporting accounting information,” according to comments provided to the Board by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General.

Properly classified information should be redacted, not misrepresented, said the accounting firm Kearney & Company. “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) should not be modified to limit reporting of classified activities. Rather, GAAP reporting should remain the same as other Federal entities and redacted for public release or remain classified.”

The new policy, which extends deceptive budgeting practices that have long been employed in intelligence budgets, means that public budget documents must be viewed critically and with a new degree of skepticism.

A classified signals intelligence program dubbed “Vesper Lillet” that recently became the subject of a fraud indictment was ostensibly sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services, but in reality it involved a joint effort of the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Security Agency.

See “Feds allege contracting fraud within secret Colorado spy warehouse” by Tom Roeder, The Gazette (Colorado Springs), October 5, 2018.

Post-9/11 Costs of War Exceed $1.5 Trillion

“Since September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense (DoD) has obligated $1,500.8 billion for war-related costs.”

That’s the headline from the latest report to Congress on the post-9/11 costs of war, according to the Pentagon’s own reckoning. See Cost of War Update as of March 31, 2018 (FY 2018, Quarter 2).

Independent estimates of military spending that use a broader definition of the term yield a considerably higher total.

The new DoD report provides a detailed retrospective account of post-9/11 military spending, broken down by theater (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria), by fiscal year, and by military service. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

The fraction of war-related funds that were appropriated to DoD in the post-9/11 period for classified purposes totaled $88 billion, the report said.

The 76-page DoD report itself exemplifies a certain financial profligacy, with a price tag that is orders of magnitude higher than one might have supposed. “The cost to the Department of Defense to prepare and assemble this report is approximately $209,000 for FY 2018,” the document states.

Bid to Rectify the “Black Budget” Fails

The so-called “black” budget — which refers to classified government spending on military procurement, operations, and intelligence — is not merely secret. It is actually deceptive and misleading, since it produces a distortion in the amount and the presentation of the published budget.

The amount of money that is purportedly appropriated for the US Air Force, for example, does not all go to the Air Force, the Senate Armed Services Committee recently observed.

“Each year, a significant portion of the Air Force budget contains funds that are passed on to, and managed by, other organizations within the Department of Defense. This portion of the budget, called ‘pass-through,’ cannot be altered or managed by the Air Force. It resides within the Air Force budget for the purposes of the President’s budget request and apportionment, but is then transferred out of the Service’s control,” according to a Senate report on the 2019 defense bill (S.Rept. 115-262).

Although the report does not say so, the Air Force budget may also include pass-through funding for the Central Intelligence Agency, which of course is not even part of the Department of Defense, as well as for other non-Air Force intelligence functions.

“In fiscal year 2018, the Air Force pass-through budget amounted to approximately $22.0 billion, or just less than half of the total Air Force procurement budget. The committee believes that the current Air Force pass-through budgeting process provides a misleading picture of the Air Force’s actual investment budget.”

The Senate therefore recommended that such “pass-through” funds be removed from the Air Force budget and included in Defense-wide appropriations.

But in the House-Senate conference on the FY2019 defense bill, this move was blocked and so the deceptive status quo will continue to prevail.

Earlier this month, the Director of National Intelligence and the Pentagon Comptroller wrote to Congress to present their views on the Senate provision. A copy of their letter, which presumably objected to the proposed move, has been requested but not yet released.

The logic of the Senate proposal was explained by Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Enterprise Institute in “Time to Get the Black Out of the Blue,” Real Clear Defense, June 13.

Trump Budget Would Reduce Most Federal R&D

The Trump Administration budget request would cut federal spending on research and development in every major agency except for the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs, the Congressional Research Service said yesterday in a new report.

“Nearly every federal agency would see its R&D funding decrease under the President’s FY2018 request compared to their FY2016 levels,” the CRS report said.

“The largest declines (as measured in dollars) would occur in the budgets of HHS (down $6.099 billion, 18.9%), DOE (down $1.809 billion, 11.9%), USDA (down $666 million, 25.1%), NSF (down $639 million, 10.6%), and the EPA (down $239 million, 46.3%).”

Federal R&D is generally understood to provide support for scientific, medical, military and other research of economic, social, security or other value that would not normally be undertaken by the private sector. Reducing R&D therefore means foregoing the benefits that might otherwise accrue from such investment.

CRS noted that the Trump budget request is “largely silent” on funding for existing multiagency R&D initiatives such as the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, Precision Medicine Initiative, Cancer Moonshot, Materials Genome Initiative, National Robotics Initiative, and National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. The future of these programs, some of which have a statutory basis, is left uncertain in the Administration budget request.

However, the budget request is the first word, not the last word, in the budgeting process.

“Congress may opt to agree with none, part, or all of the request, and it may express different priorities through the appropriations process,” CRS said. “In particular, Congress will play a central role in determining the allocation of the federal R&D investment in a period of intense pressure on discretionary spending.”

See Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018, July 31, 2017.

Other new or updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Bail: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law, updated July 31, 2017

The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape, updated July 28, 2017

Ongoing Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Investigations, CRS Insight, July 28, 2017

In Brief: Highlights of FY2018 Defense Appropriations Actions, July 31, 2017

NAFTA and Motor Vehicle Trade, July 28, 2017

Rwanda’s August 4 Presidential Election, CRS Insight, July 31, 2017

Honduras: Background and U.S. Relations, updated July 28, 2017

U.S. Petroleum Trade with Venezuela: Financial and Economic Considerations Associated with Possible Sanctions, CRS Insight, July 27, 2017

Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated July 24, 2017

Intelligence Budget Requests for FY2018 Published

The Trump Administration requested $57.7 billion for the National Intelligence Program in Fiscal Year 2018, up from a requested $54.9 billion in FY 2017.

The Administration requested $20.7 billion dollars for the Military Intelligence Program in FY 2018, up from a requested $18.5 billion in FY 2017. (The amounts actually appropriated in FY 2017 have not yet been disclosed.)

The intelligence budget request figures were published last week by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and by the Department of Defense.

The annual disclosure of the requested amount for the National Intelligence Program was mandated by Congress in the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2010. So disclosure is required regardless of the preferences of the current Administration. “As directed by statute,” wrote DNI Dan Coats this year in advance of his confirmation hearing, “I will ensure that the public release of figures representing aggregate funds requested by and appropriated for the IC is completed annually.”

Interestingly, however, there is no corresponding statutory requirement for disclosure of the requested amount for the Military Intelligence Program. The practice of voluntarily disclosing the MIP budget request was initiated by Gen. James R. Clapper when he was Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence).

“I did that,” said then-DNI Clapper in December 2015. “I thought the public had a right to know.”

The Trump Defense Budget Proposals, and More from CRS

Would the Trump Administration’s defense budget proposals comply with the current Budget Control Act limits on defense spending?

“No,” answered the Congressional Research Service CRS in a new report, which was authored by CRS specialist Pat Towell and analyst Lynn M. Williams. See The Trump Administration’s March 2017 Defense Budget Proposals: Frequently Asked Questions, April 3, 2017.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice, updated March 28, 2017

FY2017 Defense Appropriations Fact Sheet: Selected Highlights of H.R. 5293, S. 3000, and H.R. 1301, updated March 28, 2017

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), updated March 31, 2017

The Army’s Sustainable Readiness Model (SRM), CRS Insight, March 31, 2017

Votes on Measures to Adjust the Statutory Debt Limit, 1978 to Present, updated March 30, 2017

Keystone XL Pipeline: Development Issues, CRS Insight, March 30, 2017

Expiring Funds for Primary Care, CRS Insight, March 30, 2017

Overview of CEQ Guidance on Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, CRS Insight, updated March 30, 2017

The Civil Service Reform Act: Due Process and Misconduct-Related Adverse Actions, March 29, 2017

A Brief Overview of Rulemaking and Judicial Review, updated March 27, 2017

Major Disaster Assistance from the Disaster Relief Fund: State Profiles, updated March 29, 2017

Sub-Saharan Africa: Key Issues, Challenges, and U.S. Responses, March 21, 2017

Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy, updated March 29, 2017

Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated March 28, 2017

Burma’s Political Prisoners and U.S. Policy: In Brief, March 30, 2017

Iran Sanctions, updated March 31, 2017

China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities — Background and Issues for Congress, updated March 29, 2017

Talking About the Defense Budget, and More from CRS

The U.S. defense budget is comprised of several distinct components, including “base” and supplemental spending, nuclear weapons expenses, veterans benefits, and other defense-related costs.

When discussing “the defense budget,” it is therefore important to specify what is being described. Depending on what is included or excluded, “total” U.S. defense spending each year can vary by hundreds of millions of dollars.

This definitional question is neatly illustrated in a new graphic from the Congressional Research Service. See How People Talk About the FY2017 National Defense Budget.

Other new and updated publications from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Defense Primer: The National Defense Budget Function (050), CRS In Focus, March 17, 2017

Defense Primer: DOD Contractors, CRS In Focus, February 10, 2017

Defense Primer: Procurement, CRS In Focus, February 10, 2017

Military Transition Assistance Program (TAP): An Overview, CRS In Focus, March 15, 2017

Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, updated March 17, 2017

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations in Brief, updated March 17, 2017

Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Select Federal Grant Funding Issues: In Brief, March 16, 2017

The Decennial Census: Issues for 2020, March 16, 2017

A Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas, updated March 16, 2017

Medicare Primer, updated March 16, 2017

Pending ACA Legal Challenges Face Uncertain Future, CRS Legal Sidebar, March 16, 2017