National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
Name	National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
Enacted by	114th United States Congress
Signed by	Barack Obama
Date signed	December 23, 2016
Public law	114–92
Keywords	defense, budget, authorization

Contents

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 was legislation enacted during the 114th United States Congress and signed into law by Barack Obama on December 23, 2016. The Act authorized policy, personnel, procurement, and research measures affecting the United States Department of Defense, the United States Armed Forces, and related agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in programmatic and appropriations guidance. Its passage intersected with debates involving the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, the Pentagon, and advocacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Heritage Foundation.

Background and Legislative History

The bill originated as a response to long-running defense authorization cycles shaped by precedents like the National Security Act of 1947 and fiscal frameworks from the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. Sponsors and negotiators in the United States Congress included leaders from the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States House Committee on Armed Services, with key figures such as John McCain, Thad Cochran, Mac Thornberry, and Adam Smith influencing provisions. During floor debates, amendments from members like Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Elizabeth Warren, and Lindsey Graham were considered alongside testimony from officials of the Department of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the United States Cyber Command. The legislative process featured conference negotiations between the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, culminating in a conference report approved by both chambers and transmitted to the White House for signature.

Major provisions addressed force structure, readiness, personnel policy, procurement, and authorities for operations tied to theaters such as Operation Inherent Resolve, Resolute Support Mission, and activities in regions including Eastern Europe, the South China Sea, and the Middle East. The Act expanded authorities related to cybersecurity efforts coordinated with United States Cyber Command, National Security Agency, and interagency partners like the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Personnel measures included pay increase directives impacting United States Army, United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Air Force, and United States Coast Guard servicemembers, alongside reforms touching retirement and health benefits referenced by entities such as the Office of Personnel Management and the Tricare program. Procurement sections authorized programs for platforms including the F-35 Lightning II, Virginia-class submarine, Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, Columbia-class submarine, and modernization efforts for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile systems overseen by the United States Strategic Command.

The Act set authorized funding levels that aligned with Defense Department budget submissions and congressional budget resolutions such as those from the House Budget Committee and the Senate Budget Committee. Funding allocations covered procurement, operations and maintenance, research and development through agencies like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Missile Defense Agency, and military construction overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers. Budget language reflected tradeoffs influenced by the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, and fiscal pressures from sequestration debates tied to the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Act included authorities for Overseas Contingency Operations accounts and adjustments to acquisition authorities impacting contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon.

The Act generated controversy over provisions touching surveillance, detention, and civil liberties, prompting scrutiny from organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Human Rights Watch. Debate centered on authorities resembling provisions from prior statutes such as the Patriot Act and interactions with rulings from the United States Supreme Court and federal circuit courts. Legal questions were raised regarding executive authority, separation of powers contested by administrations like the Obama administration and later the Trump administration, and potential conflicts with international obligations under treaties like the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter. Litigation and oversight inquiries involved committees such as the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight Committee.

Implementation engaged the Secretary of Defense, service secretaries, combatant commanders in commands like the United States Central Command, United States European Command, and United States Indo-Pacific Command, and agencies including the Defense Logistics Agency. The Act influenced procurement schedules, basing decisions with partners such as NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, and affected industrial base considerations involving shipyards, depots, and defense contractors. Programmatic impacts were tracked by analysts at institutions such as the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the RAND Corporation, and the Cato Institute, which assessed readiness, force posture, and long-term modernization trajectories.

Reactions spanned statements from congressional leaders including Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, as well as executive commentary from President Barack Obama at signing and subsequent remarks by President Donald Trump during transitions. Defense officials such as Ashton Carter and successors provided implementation guidance, while public advocacy and watchdog groups like Project on Government Oversight and the Sunlight Foundation weighed in on transparency and oversight. The Act's passage reflected bipartisan negotiation dynamics within the 114th United States Congress and anticipated debates in subsequent sessions including the 115th United States Congress.

Category:United States federal defense legislation