Pay Our Military Act

Pay Our Military Act
Title	Pay Our Military Act
Introduced	February 2018
Enacted by	115th United States Congress
Public law	Pub.L. 115–123
Signed by	Donald Trump
Date signed	February 2018
Status	enacted

Pay Our Military Act The Pay Our Military Act provided for the continued payment of members of the United States Armed Forces and certain civilian personnel during a lapse in appropriations in February 2018. The statute was enacted rapidly amid a funding dispute between United States Congress majorities and the Donald Trump administration, and it temporarily insulated military pay from the immediate effects of the 2018 United States federal government shutdown negotiations. Supporters cited precedents such as the Antideficiency Act exceptions and prior continuing resolutions like the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013; opponents raised concerns paralleling debates during the 1995–1996 United States federal government shutdowns and the 2013 United States federal government shutdown.

Background

The measure arose in the context of a standoff involving leaders of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, including figures like Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer. The dispute followed budgetary conflicts related to the Department of Defense (United States), the Department of Homeland Security, and appropriations for agencies affected by the Omnibus Spending Bill processes. Historical analogues include the Defense Appropriations Act patterns and legislative responses to previous shutdowns involving negotiators such as Orrin Hatch and Steny Hoyer. Legal frameworks referenced included interpretations of the Antideficiency Act by the Office of Management and Budget and advisory opinions from the Government Accountability Office.

Legislative History

The bill was introduced in the United States Senate and swiftly advanced through the Senate Armed Services Committee and procedural motions led by members like James Inhofe and John McCain (U.S. Senator). Passage mirrored prior emergency measures such as legislation following the September 11 attacks and funding actions during the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). The United States House of Representatives passed companion provisions, with floor votes involving representatives including Kevin McCarthy and Nancy Pelosi. The final measure was signed by Donald Trump after bipartisan debates involving Bernie Sanders and Mitch McConnell and procedural involvement of the United States Senate Majority Leader and the United States Senate Minority Leader.

Provisions and Effects

Key provisions authorized full pay and allowances for active-duty members of the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Air Force, United States Marine Corps, and United States Coast Guard during the lapse. The Act also covered certain civilian personnel performing functions deemed necessary to the readiness of the Department of Defense (United States), the National Guard, and related entities such as the United States Transportation Command and U.S. Northern Command. The statute operated alongside existing mechanisms like continuing resolutions and did not extend to some contractors or personnel funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs or certain civilian federal agencies. Implementation referenced payroll systems such as the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and guidance from the Office of Personnel Management.

Fiscal Impact

Analysts from institutions such as the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office estimated short-term costs tied to payroll obligations, overtime, and related operational expenses for deployments and training. Budgetary implications connected to prior appropriations frameworks like the Budget Control Act of 2011 and sequestration debates involving Paul Ryan and Patty Murray. Long-term fiscal concerns invoked comparisons to spending during the Global War on Terrorism and adjustments to the Defense budget (United States), as well as accounting practices overseen by the Office of Management and Budget.

Political and Public Response

Political reaction split among leaders including Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and Chuck Schumer, with commentary from commentators aligned with figures such as Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow. Veterans groups and organizations like the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars welcomed the protection of pay, while some advocacy groups debated impacts on civilian furloughs and contractor communities represented by unions like the American Federation of Government Employees. Media coverage in outlets referencing reporters associated with The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, and CNN highlighted comparisons to earlier shutdowns and opinions from think tanks including the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation.

Implementation and Administration

Administrative implementation required coordination among the Department of Defense (United States), the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the Office of Management and Budget, and service secretaries such as the Secretary of Defense (United States). Orders and guidance echoed procedures used during prior funding gaps involving Continuing Appropriations Resolution actions and were informed by legal counsel from the Department of Justice and advisories from the Government Accountability Office. Payroll continuity for deployed forces necessitated logistical coordination with commands including United States Central Command and United States European Command.

Legal Challenges and Interpretations

Legal analysis focused on the interplay between the Pay Our Military Act and the Antideficiency Act, with opinions referencing litigation standards from cases heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and advisory precedent from the Government Accountability Office. Interpretations considered the scope of exceptions for "excepted" personnel, drawing on administrative law principles discussed in contexts such as the Judiciary Act and decisions by the United States Supreme Court. Questions arose over potential claims by furloughed civilians or contractors in forums such as the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Category:United States federal legislation Category:2018 in American law