May 14, 2015

Dear Representative,

TCS urges support for the following amendments during debate on H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization bill. Each of these amendments relates to issues of importance to fiscal conservatives. We strongly believe the Pentagon’s budget cannot be held sacrosanct from the scrutiny that should apply to every federal agency. An “aye” vote on these amendments will apply that scrutiny in areas that need it:

Amendment #2, offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado to reduce from 11 to 10 the statutory requirement for the number of aircraft carriers in the U.S. Navy. 

• This does not actually reduce the number of carriers, it simply allows the Navy to make decisions about their assets.

Amendment #32 offered by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon and Mr. Polis of Colorado to require funding for the Navy’s new ballistic missile submarine to be moved from the Sea-based Deterrence Fund to its historic Navy budget lines. 

• This removes a budget gimmick that would ultimately cost taxpayers.

Amendment #33 offered by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina and Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland requiring a GAO report on the use of Overseas Contingency Operation funds. 

• This would simply provide Congress with details on how OCO funds have actually been spent.

Amendment #83, offered by Mr. Burgess of Texas, Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois, and Ms. Lee of California on auditable financial statements. 

• This would simply provide Congress with a ranking of the different services’ and agencies’ progress on achieving auditable financial statements.

Amendment #134, offered by Mr. LoBiondo of New Jersey expressing the Sense of the Congress that taxpayer funds should not be paid to any organization to honor the service of members of the Armed Forces. 

• It was recently revealed that in several cases the National Guard was paying professional sports teams to honor service members. Teams shouldn’t have to be paid to honor troops.

Amendment #288, offered by Mr. Quigley of Illinois requiring a report comparing the costs of extending Minuteman III ICBMs with the costs of procuring a new ground based strategic deterrent.

• This would simply inform Congress of the costs of different options.

We also urge a “No” vote on the following amendment:

Amendment #35, offered by Ms. Lummis of Wyoming, Mr. Zinke of Montana, Mr. Cramer of North Dakota, and Mr. Smith of Nebraska to prohibit the reduction of the alert posture of the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile force. 

• This amendment could potentially cost taxpayers significantly and interferes with military decision making.

For more information on any of these issues, please contact Wendy Jordan at wendy[at]taxpayer.net.

Sincerely,