FY2022 NDAA: Summary of Discretionary Authorizations

FY2022 NDAA: Summary of Discretionary Authorizations

INSIGHTi

FY2022 NDAA: Summary of Discretionary
Authorizations
January 4, 2022
Of the $768.3 billion requested in the FY2022 President’s budget for national defense programs, $743.1
billion was for discretionary programs falling within the scope of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2022 (NDAA; P.L. 117-81). The remainder of the national defense budget request was for
discretionary programs that were not within the jurisdiction of the House Armed Services Committee
(HASC) and the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), discretionary programs that did not require
additional authorization, or mandatory programs that were previously authorized.
In considering the FY2022 NDAA, Members of Congress debated various proposals to increase the
amount of funding authorized in the legislation.
The House-passed version of the bill (H.R. 4350) would have authorized a total of $768.1 billion for
discretionary programs—$25 billion (3.4%) more than the President’s request, according to H.Rept. 117-
118. During the HASC markup of its version of the bill, Representative Mike Rogers, ranking member of
the committee, offered an amendment to increase authorized appropriations by $23.9 billion. He said the
increase would “ensure defense spending grows by 3% above inflation, meeting the recommendations of
the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission.” Rogers also said the increase would support the
unfunded priorities of the armed services and combatant commands, as well as provide the resources
necessary to counter the growing threat from China and other strategic competitors. The committee voted
to adopt the amendment 42-17. Among those on the committee who voted against the amendment was,
for example, Chair Adam Smith, who said a smaller increase would encourage DOD to spend money
more wisely, improve acquisition and procurement practices, and better anticipate threats. “If we give
them another $23.9 billion, it takes the pressure off,” he said. “It makes it easier for them to just keep
doing what they’ve been doing.”
In response to the House-passed legislation, the White House stated it planned to work with Congress “to
set an appropriate and responsible level of defense spending to support the security of the nation” while
also providing “appropriate resources for non-security investments and security investments outside the
Department of Defense (DOD).” The White House argued, in part, “The Administration opposes the
direction to add funding for platforms and systems that cannot be affordably modernized given the need
to prioritize survivable, lethal, and resilient forces in the current threat environment and eliminate
wasteful spending.”
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11834
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

link to page 2 Congressional Research Service
2
The SASC-reported version of the bill (S. 2792) would have authorized a similar level for discretionary
programs, $767.7 billion—$25 billion (3.4%) more than the request, according to S.Rept. 117-39. In
commenting on SASC’s completion of marking up its version of the bill, Senator Jim Inhofe, ranking
member of the committee, said, “... this year’s bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act increases
the defense topline to the National Defense Strategy Commission’s recommendation of 3% to 5% real
growth. This is a big win for our national security and sends a strong message to both our allies and
adversaries that America is prepared to stand up for ourselves and our friends.” Among the senators who
opposed the committee reporting the legislation to the Senate was, for example, Senator Elizabeth
Warren. In speaking on the Senate floor in opposition to the legislation, she argued, in part, “America’s
spending priorities are completely misaligned with the threats Americans are actually facing, the things
are quite literally endangering their lives—like COVID-19 and the climate crisis.”
The enacted legislation (S. 1605) authorized $768.2 billion for discretionary programs—$25.1 billion
(3.4%) more than the request, according to the accompanying explanatory statement. In terms of major
titles in the bill, more than half of the overall increase was authorized for procurement programs (see
Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in FY2022 NDAA
(in billions of dollars)
Title
President's
House-passed
SASC-reported Enacted S. 1605
Difference (%)
budget request
H.R. 4350
S. 2792
from request
Procurement
$132.21
$147.06
$144.05
$146.88
11.1%
Research and
$111.96
$118.07
$116.11
$117.73
5.1%
Development
Operation and
$253.62
$253.03
$260.41
$255.40
0.7%
Maintenance
Military Personnel
$167.29
$166.86
$166.79
$166.90
-0.2%
Defense Health
$39.85
$41.07
$39.88
$39.72
-0.3%
Program and
Other DOD
Military
$9.85
$13.42
$12.71
$13.35
35.5%
Construction and
Family Housing
Subtotal,
$714.77
$739.52
$739.95
$739.99
3.5%
Department of
Defense-Military
(051)
Atomic Energy
$27.94
$28.21
$27.75
$27.84
-0.3%
Defense
Programs (053)
Defense-Related
$0.38
$0.38
$0.00
$0.38
0.0%
Activities (054)
Total
$743.09
$768.11
$767.70
$768.21
3.4%
Source: HASC report (H.Rept. 117-118; Part 1) accompanying its version of the FY2022 NDAA (H.R. 4350), pp. 346-349;
SASC report (S.Rept. 117-39) accompanying its version of the FY2022 NDAA (S. 2792), pp. 378-381; and explanatory
statement accompanying the FY2022 NDAA (S. 1605) in Part 2 of the House section of the Congressional Record,
December 7, 2021, pp. H7362-H7364.
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Dol ars rounded to nearest hundredth; percentages rounded to nearest
tenth.

link to page 3 Congressional Research Service
3
Table 2 shows the difference between requested and authorized funding in the NDAA over the past
decade.
Table 2. Requested and Authorized Funding in the National Defense Authorization Act,
FY2013-FY2021
(in billions of dollars)
Fiscal Year
Public Law (P.L.) #
Requested
Authorized
Difference (%)
FY2013
P.L. 112-239
$631.60
$633.34
0.3%
FY2014
P.L. 113-66
$625.15
$625.14
0.0%
FY2015
P.L. 113-291
$577.15
$577.15
0.0%
FY2016
P.L. 114-92
$604.21
$599.21
-0.8%
FY2017
P.L. 114-328
$607.98
$611.17
0.5%
FY2018
P.L. 115-91
$665.72
$692.10
4.0%
FY2019
P.L. 115-232
$708.11
$708.10
0.0%
FY2020
P.L. 116-92
$741.93
$729.93
-1.6%
FY2021
P.L. 116-283
$731.61
$731.61
0.0%
FY2022
P.L. 117-81
$743.09
$768.21
3.4%
Source: CRS analysis of funding tables in conference reports or explanatory statements accompanying National Defense
Authorization Acts. Amounts include funding for Department of Defense-Military, atomic energy defense programs,
defense-related activities and, from FY2013 to FY2021, funding designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
Dol ars rounded to nearest hundredth; percentages rounded to nearest tenth.
Notes: Links to reports or explanatory statements are embedded in table figures.

Author Information

Brendan W. McGarry

Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,

Congressional Research Service
4
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN11834 · VERSION 1 · NEW