There are numerous initiatives in the fiscal year 2022 Defense Authorization
bill that are of direct strategic or military value, even if they are not the hot-button
political issues likely to grab the most attention during conference
negotiations between the House and Senate.

As the full Senate prepares to consider the fiscal year 2022
National Defense Authorization bill, it is worth highlighting two themes in the
report approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee: barriers to defense modernization
and support for combatant commands.

To address the first key theme, the
bill contains a number of provisions designed to help the department remove
barriers to modernization and competitiveness. In listing key themes, the
committee states that the bill, “Improves efficiencies in resource allocation
within the Department through transformation of the planning and budgeting
process, acquisition process, and management structure and culture.”

The committee proposes to carry
out this goal through the following three key provisions that are worth
watching as the bill goes through conference to finalization.

First, the bill includes language on improving the way the department buys emerging technology (Section 804). Through this provision, the Senate is attempting to speed up the way DOD brings emerging technology into its systems and provide the Secretary of Defense with some additional seed money to more quickly respond to opportunities to counter China and Russia. Specifically, Section 804 would “establish a pilot program to develop and implement unique contracting mechanisms for emerging technologies that increase the speed, flexibility, and competition of the acquisition process.” While previous attempts to apply radically different procurement approaches to improve acquisition outcomes have fallen short, the National Security Council on Artificial Intelligence, among others, found this problem must be solved to achieve competitiveness.

Second, the bill recommends increased use of data analytics and innovative management (Section 906). In this provision the committee directs the department to look at private sector management practices and workforce capabilities as a way to improve its business operations. DOD has some of the world’s largest financial, logistics, education and training, healthcare, and data systems but is not able to obtain and utilize all of the information it collects to support its missions. Given the size and scope of these business functions, the department has opportunities internally to pursue innovative solutions, like its Advancing Analytics effort, to produce major shifts in management insights and program performance with minor incremental changes in system integration.

Third, the committee
proposes a Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE)
Reform (Section 1002). This provision has the potential to anchor the previous
two provisions if, rather than focusing only on PPBE as currently written, the
final negotiated conference direction requires a broader review of barriers to
defense modernization. The committee rightly notes that
there are obstacles in the programming
and budgeting processes to the rapid development and integration of new war-fighting capabilities. The commission
should be charged with identifying and recommending options to remove these
obstacles along with those cultural, process, regulatory and statutory barriers
within the requirements, acquisition and management functions as well.

The second key theme addresses challenges related to balancing
long-term priorities with more immediate needs of combatant commanders. The
committee states that the bill, “Supports the Department of Defense and
provides the resources needed by the combatant commands to carry out the
National Defense Strategy and ensure the United States can out-compete, deter,
and prevail against near-peer rivals, with a focus on strengthening our posture
in the Indo-Pacific region.”

With this priority in mind, the committee systematically increased
authorized funding for Combatant Command (COCOM) security cooperation
activities and included two key provisions to emphasize and support related
activities.

First, the Security Cooperation Strategy for certain COCOMs
(Section 1206) provision requires DOD, in coordination with the Department of
State, to develop and implement security cooperation
strategies for each geographic combatant command. Since each COCOM already has
many of the elements required by the provision in its theater campaign plans,
this provision is primarily useful in calling attention to the role such
efforts play in the department’s overall strategy and identifying any authority
gaps to their execution.

Second, through the Strategic
competition initiative for United States Southern Command and United States
Africa Command (Section 1276) provision, the committee continues to address
long-term strategic competition with China and Russia by authorizing additional
security cooperation activities in places not immediately considered priorities
but where future threats exist.

It is thematic areas such as those noted here, and others related to defense strategy, that argue for enactment of the defense authorization bill as a key congressional responsibility — a responsibility that, along with enactment of annual regular appropriations, continues to fall victim to political gridlock.

The post Why the fate of the Defense Authorization Bill matters appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.