Volume XVIII No. 47

This week the Senate began consideration of S. 1197, the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA.) The Congressional Budget Office estimates the NDAA Pentagon spending  “priorities” at $626 Billion.

Senate debate on NDAA is delayed until after the Thanksgiving recess, but there are hundreds of amendments filed that would shift funding levels or elevate certain lawmaker’s policy priorities.  We are vigilant, looking out for amendments that would lead to wasting more of our precious tax dollars on parochial interests or items extraneous to national security. Conversely, we love to trumpet the ones that would save the Treasury even a few nickels because with a $17 trillion debt, the country could use every dime.

Here’s a look at a handful of the amendments that were filed that we support:

Senators Markey (D-MA) and Wyden’s (D-OR) amendment to require the Navy to submit updated cost estimates for all options to replace the OHIO class ballistic missile submarine.  The U.S. Naval Institute last year cited Navy estimates that the first boat of the class would cost $5.6 billion but eventually go down to a mere $4.9 billion each.  Since the Navy’s current plan to purchase 12 of these boats would easily exceed $60 billion, cost estimates of all the options should be a priority for the Navy.

Senator Kaine (D-VA) filed an amendment asking for an independent report on Pentagon commissaries. If ever a program has outlived its usefulness to the active duty military, at least those stationed in the United States, it is the commissary system. Born of a military base structure that often found military families living in remote locales like Ft. Huachuca in Arizona or Edwards Air Force Base in California, commissaries once made sure food staples were available nearby and at a reasonable price. This is no longer necessary at the vast majority of stateside bases. Efficiencies are likely available in a system that cost at least $1.3 billion in FY2009, the last year the Pentagon budget request had easily accessible numbers for the Defense Commissary Agency.  Shining a light on this anachronism is a TCS priority.

Senator Coburn (R-OK) has an amendment barring non-defense spending in the defense budget.  For too long the immense size of the Pentagon budget has been a magnet for clandestinely funding programs unrelated to national security.  But if this money isn’t being spent on Pentagon priorities, what is it doing in the Pentagon budget?

An amendment sponsored by Senators Coburn, Manchin (D-WV), Grassley (R-IA), Paul (R-KY), Chambliss (R-GA), Johnson (R-WI), Cornyn (R-TX), Wyden, and Ayotte (R-NH) calling for the Pentagon to submit to an audit.  It’s hard to believe that it has never been a federal priority to audit a department that will spend about $600 billion of our tax money next year.  That needs to change.

And of course we oppose wasteful spending amendments. Here are a few:

An amendment sponsored by Senators Baucus (D-MT), Enzi (R-WY), Barasso (R-WY), Tester (D-MT), Hoeven (R-ND), Heitkamp (D-ND), Fischer (R-NE), Johanns (R-NE), and Hatch (R-UT) to require that all Inter-continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) silos be kept in a “warm” status, ensuring each could immediately be fully operational once a missile was deployed in that silo. The reality is that at least one of the three Air Force bases with missile fields (in WY, ND, and MT – states sound familiar?) will be threatened in a new round of base realignment and closure (BRAC) and this is a blatant attempt to make them all “BRAC-proof.”  It’s clear why this amendment would be one of their priorities, but this is the worst kind of parochial pandering.

And speaking of base closure, we oppose Senator Shaheen’s (D-NH) amendment to block any funding for a new round of base closings.  While it might seem we should support any amendment reducing spending, we agree with the President’s priorities on this one.  In its Statement of Administration Policy on this bill, the Office of Management and Budget states any move to set pre-conditions for another round of base closure could prompt a Presidential veto.

We oppose Senator Thune’s (R-SD) amendment expressing the Sense of the Senate that the Air Force should prioritize the development and purchase of a new Long Range Strike Bomber.  Although non-binding, an amendment encouraging another pricey aircraft for a service struggling to afford the monstrously expensive F-35A “Lightning” aircraft seems tone deaf and excessive.

Finally, one of our top priorities at TCS is making sure any adjustment to the budget caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 is done by responsible spending or revenue offsets. For this reason, we oppose Senator McCain’s (R-AZ) amendment to increase Pentagon spending over the capped amount for the next four years with promises of larger defense cuts than the BCA prescribed between fiscal year’s 2018 and 2021. This isn’t our first time around the budget rodeo, and believing that increased spending today will be offset by bigger spending cuts tomorrow is a sucker bet.  TCS is working with groups across the political spectrum to defeat this amendment.

As taxpayers, what are your priorities?