National Defense Authorization Act

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a United States federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. Each year's act also includes other provisions. The U.S. Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations bills. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent.

Notable or controversial NDAA legislation

 * National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, . This NDAA is formally named after John Warner, a U.S. war veteran and former long-term Senator and Senate Armed Services Committee chairman and U.S. Secretary of the Navy from Virginia.


 * National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, . This NDAA is notable for including a signing statement, one of many that President George W. Bush controversially (see articles) used in attempting to project a "strong" unitary executive theory — one that he hoped would consolidate and expand Executive Branch power.


 * National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, . This NDAA contains important (see article) hate crimes legislation.


 * National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, . This NDAA is formally named after Ike Skelton, a former long-term Congressman and Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee from Missouri.


 * National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, . This NDAA contains several controversial sections (see article), the chief being §§ 1021-1022, which affirm provisions authorizing the indefinite military detention of civilians, including U.S. citizens, contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),.


 * National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310 (2013). This NDAA contains also several controversial sections (see article), including § 1033, which, although affirming Constitutional habeas corpus protections for "U.S. citizens and permanent residents" — if affected by the indefinite detention provisions 2012's NDAA and the AUMF — § 1033 excludes everyone else in general. This is in contravention to the wording of  Article One, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: instead of explicitly limiting the applicability of the writ to U.S. citizens, this so-called Suspension Clause is a limit on Congressional power, stating "Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion..."