NDAA Pro-Taxpayer Recommendations | Taxpayers for Common Sense

Letters & Testimony

NDAA Pro-Taxpayer Recommendations

TCS RSS Feed RSS
July 13, 2017

TCS sent the following letter to the House of Representatives in anticipation of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

View/Download this article in pdf format

NDAA Pro-Taxpayer Recommendations


Dear Representative, 

Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly believes the Pentagon’s budget should not be shielded from efforts to eliminate waste and prioritize funding investments.

We were disappointed that several pro-taxpayer amendments were not allowed to be considered by the Rules Committee. Among the amendments still up for consideration we urge the following votes regarding H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. Each of these amendments relates to issues of importance to fiscal conservatives.

On these amendments we urge an “aye” vote:

Amendment #14 in the first Rule (offered as amendment #67) by Mr. McClintock of California to strike the prohibition on a new round of Base Closure and Realignment.

Amendment #12 in the first Rule (offered as amendment #142) by Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Larsen to amend an annual report regarding the costs of the nuclear program.

Amendment #88 in the first Rule (offered as amendment #143) by Mr. Rogers of Alabama to amend an annual report regarding the costs of the nuclear program.

Amendment #13 in the first Rule (offered as amendment #314) by Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Smith (WA), Ms. Lee (CA) and Mr. Ellison requiring the Nuclear Posture Review to be completed before all funds are expended on a certain missile system.

Amendment #45 in the first Rule (offered as amendment #371) by Mr. Conaway, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Jones and Ms. Lee regarding an audit of the Pentagon.

Amendment #25 in the second Rule (offered as amendment #44) by Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania on a process to minimize duplication and reduce costs in studies and analysis research.

On these amendment we urge a “no” vote:

Amendment #14 in the second Rule (offered as amendment #102) by Ms. Cheney of Wyoming preventing reductions to Inter-continental ballistic missiles.

Amendment #122 in the second Rule (offered as amendment #205) by Ms. Tenney of New York, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Jones (NC), Mr. Katko, and Mr. Brooks (AL) to give Berry Amendment protections to stainless steel flatware with a one year phase-in period.

Amendment #19 in the second Rule (offered as amendment #241) by Mr. Poliquin of Maine to transfer risk to the Navy from the contractors building certain destroyers.

Amendment #16 in the second Rule (offered as amendment #367) by Mr. DesJarlais of Tennessee to require an unfunded priorities list from the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Amendment #121 in the second Rule (offered as amendment #428) by Mr. Marino of Pennsylvania to require a report on the sourcing of tungsten and tungsten powder from domestic sources.

If you have any questions on these amendments or our recommendations, please contact me or Wendy Jordan at wendy@taxpayer.net or 202-546-8500.

Sincerely,

Ryan Alexander,

President 





Filed under:

Discussion
Weekly Wastebasket

Our weekly reality-check for federal spending. View All

September 21, 2017

Lots of Lawmaker To-Dos

Congress may have kicked the end of fiscal year spending issue can down the legislative road for a couple... Read More

Cyber Spending Database

Click Here to Access

Make a Gift

Support