NDAA Pro-Taxpayer Recommendations

Letter to the HillNDAA Pro-Taxpayer Recommendations

National Security  | Quick Takes
Jul 13, 2017  | 3 min read

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.

RELATED ARTICLE
What Does the U.S. Government Spend on Cyber Issues? Nobody Knows

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