Close readers of Taxpayers for Common Sense writings about spending legislation are familiar with our maxim: always read the General Provisions! We’ve written about it, quite a few times; and we’ve talked about it on a recent nerdy, fact-filled episode of Budget Watchdog AF (All Federal) (BWAF! Subscribe so you won’t miss an episode!).

Appropriations legislation is best known for setting spending limits on federal programs. Policy is meant to be set in authorizing legislation – think of the annual Pentagon policy bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), or the once-every-five-years Farm Bill. But, as we pointed out in our BWAF discussion, policy can be made or shattered by spending decisions. Congress doesn’t like a policy proposed or taken by the President? The fastest way to block that policy is to insert language saying no federal funds may be spent to finalize or enforce the policy. No money/no action. Easy/peasy. Conversely, the President doesn’t ask for money for a certain program? Congress can force a policy by insisting on funding a program.

But another way appropriators effect policy is in the so-called “General Provisions” toward the end of every appropriations bill. And this year’s Pentagon spending bill is a doozy. The actual bill language for the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) spending bill drafted in the Senate runs 132 pages. Of that, General Provisions fill pages 45-132. So, roughly two thirds of the actual bill is devoted to these highly specific provisions that are, technically, authorizing (setting policy) in an appropriations bill.

And because the language of an appropriations bill is only in force for the duration of that fiscal year, many of these provisions appear year after year after year after…well, you get it. In fact, of the 124 General Provisions in the Senate draft, 114 of them are repeats. Technically the language in those provisions is either “retained” or “retained and modified” from previous years. Only ten of the General Provisions are new this year, though we expect they will soon become part of the “Appropriations Greatest Hits” and persist until the end of time, kind of like glitter.

In one case, Senate appropriators even inform us exactly how long a provision has been going for a ride in the annual spending bill. Section 8077: Budget Justification for Contingency Operations, we’re told, retains and modifies, “a provision carried 17 previous years.” Maybe time to just put that justification requirement into statute? But we’d also love to see this in every General Provision because…

…we can tell you that some of this language has been carried in General Provisions for decades. Like Section 8016, a prohibition on buying a certain gauge of anchor and mooring chain from anywhere but a United States source. These kinds of “Buy American” provisions abound in General Provisions. (Ball bearings; U.S. flags; carbon, alloy or armor steel plate; on and on and on…) In the case of anchor and mooring chain, the Member of Congress behind the provision is long gone from the House of Representatives having left Congress to run for Governor and subsequently died, but the prohibition on foreign mooring chain remains.

The ten new General Provisions are:

• A new transfer authority allowing the Pentagon to access commercial innovation
• A prohibition on the retirement of C-40 aircraft (sigh)
• A new transfer authority for two combatant commands in Africa and South America to “improve capabilities of allies and partners”
• A new transfer authority to improve military readiness
• “Operations to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria”
• Reflecting increased fuel costs
• Reflecting revised economic assumptions
• Reflecting savings due to changes in foreign currency values
• Allowing equipment transfers into “Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund”
• Providing reimbursement to cooperating nations for support to “military and stability operations”

Three of these, relating directly to inflation and fluctuations in currency exchange rates, are perfect candidates to be short term General Provisions – pop up issues, not anticipated by and accounted for in the President’s Budget Request. But the rest? These appear to be policy issues better suited to the two Armed Services Committees and the NDAA.

We’re pretty sure most of these new provisions will carry on, whether from inattention, inertia, or because some lobbyist somewhere is paid to make sure they do. We’ll be here to write about it.