National Defense Authorization Act: Bad Process Yields Bad Legislation

Late on Thursday December 19, 2013 the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed the Senate and was sent to President Obama for his signature just moments before he left for Hawaii on his annual Christmas vacation. The bill made its way through the House of Representatives twice, once last summer and another time a few weeks ago, before getting stalled in the Senate due to the question of how exactly the Senate would go about moving the massive defense spending legislation through the chamber. The process was rushed and limited; and in turn produced a massive ill that left much to be desired in the way of meaningful reforms to some of our most costly defense programs.  Passing a Defense authorization bill is critical to defending the nation but also defending tax dollars. As the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) pointed out in December of 2011, once appropriators get a hold of the bill there is no telling what will happen (read previous blog posting here).  In December 2012 Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) revealed just how much our defense department is doing that has absolutely nothing to do with protecting our country in his report titled, “Department of Everything.” Oh by the way, the total that Sen. Coburn tallied was $68 billion.

During last summer, the National Defense Authorization Act moved through the House of Representatives, and TPA was quick to analyze every one of the amendments that was up for consideration to be added to the bill.  Even though TPA preferred many more amendments, the fact that the House of Representatives was able to allow a process that put 100 amendments on the table was reason to applaud and be optimistic of real reform at the Department of Defense. The amendment process is one of the few ways that real and meaningful reform can be achieved and when dealing with legislation the size and scale of the National Defense Authorization Act, it is extremely important that every opportunity be given to make improvements to the bill and allow for a process that gives lawmakers a full and free range of input on exactly what will (and will not) be a part of final language. There were many amendments that TPA had expressed opposition to and many we urged members to support, including an amendment sponsored by Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), Jared Polis (D-Col.), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that “Ends authority for the blanket collection of records under the Patriot Act” which received the most attention of any amendment. TPA was proud to be a part of numerous bi-partisan coalitions commenting on both the process and the content of the bill.

Fast forward to last week when the bill finally passed the Senate. Politico’s Juana Summers and Austin Wright summarized the rushed process for final passage:

“The 84-15 vote followed a drawn-out partisan spat that at times appeared to threaten the annual National Defense Authorization Act. Senate Republicans, particularly, fumed about the compromise legislation’s movement through Congress on a fast track, with no opportunity for amendments.”

This kind of ‘fast-tracked’ process is exactly the type of problem that should concern many taxpayers. A bill that authorizes more than $600 billion being hurried through Congress with no real opportunity for a full and open amendment process is not the best way to end a year in which Washington DC made news with a sequester-busting budget deal, major moves towards internet sales taxation, and a Farm Bill from each chamber of Congress that does little to reform agriculture policy in a meaningful way.

The fundamental problem with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is that there are real cuts to be made when it comes to the Pentagon budget and yet lawmakers appear to be numb that clear fact. In late November, shortly before the Senate took up the NDAA, Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center touched on this point in National Review:

It is worth noting that for all the complaints about how the defense caps and sequester cuts are hurting our ability to defend the nation, there is a substantial amount of waste and abuse in the Department of Defense. In fact, it’s hard to take seriously the complaints coming from the Department of Defense about the cuts when it is running, and has been running for years, massive cost overruns on nearly ever program.

The blatant waste at the DoD is something TPA has highlighted many times over the past several months and yet the compromise NDAA bill that made its way through Congress over the last few weeks was clearly heavier on continued wasteful spending, than it was on meaningful reforms. A disappointing result that does taxpayers a great disservice and feeds into a false narrative put forth by those looking to keep the pork in the Pentagon. The reality is something that is quite the contrary, a bloated bureaucracy where accounting gimmicks and outdated and/or unworkable programs have become the norm. Earlier this year, the National Taxpayers Union and the R Street Institute published a detailed report outlining exactly where and what to trim from the DoD over the long-term in order to achieve reforms that could amount to $1.9 trillion in saved taxpayer dollars over the next decade:

• Wasteful, unnecessary, or low-priority weapons systems, such as the SM-3 Block II-B missile (eliminated in favor of less expensive options), the F-35 fighter (replaced with other jets), refurbishment of M-1 tanks (delayed), and the Virginia class submarine (reduced in procurement). 50 recommendations for $385.8 billion in savings.

• Personnel, compensation, and benefit reforms ranging from less spending on military bands to capping the troop presence in Europe; from health care benefit restructuring to adjusting the “high-three” retirement formula. 20 recommendations for $618.6 billion in savings.

• Overhauling deficient processes and management structures, including a reduction in DoD printing costs, consolidation of foreign language contracts, combining support services at joint bases, and a full audit of Pentagon finances. 30 recommendations for $878.5 billion in savings.

The need for reform couldn’t be any more obvious, and with actual means with which to achieve these reachable goals it is frustrating to TPA (and all taxpayers) to see backroom deals struck on both a massive defense authorization bill and a budget deal that continue to spend more taxpayer money on programs that are a waste of needed resources.