SUMMER READING: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

Congress is set to return to Washington D.C. this coming Monday after a month-long recess and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) has been giving members some tips on what they need to work on when they come back with our Summer Reading series. Today, the final part of the series focuses on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which has yet to make its way completely through both chambers of Congress. In May the House passed the NDAA by a large bipartisan majority vote of 325-98, but the Senate (in familiar fashion) failed to move on their version leaving the Department of Defense (DoD) in limbo regarding how much and what they’ll be able to spend for fiscal year (FY) 2015.

The most important thing for taxpayers to know about the NDAA is that there is a major difference in terms of how each chamber has proceeded when moving the legislation through from debate to passage. In the House, the process is open (at a limited level) to allow for a large number of amendments to be offered and ultimately voted on before final passage. TPA was very active during the House debate over the NDAA, releasing a detailed analysis of amendments offered and classifying them as ones that should or should not be included in the final bill.  There were victories and losses for taxpayers and advocates of reduced bureaucracy and spending at DoD, but the House ultimately allowed for such victories to be possible, which in and of itself was a win.

There is still much work to be done with NDAA in the Senate.  The biggest concern is the lack of transparency in the process compared to the House. Just weeks before passage in the House, TPA called on the Senate to follow the lead of their colleagues on the other side of the Capitol and open up the process and allow for transparent debate and amendment consideration, even as retiring Senate Armed Services Chair Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) made clear he would continue the lack of transparency on NDAA that he has overseen for years:

The fiscal 2015 defense authorization will be his last, and though half of the panel’s subcommittees opened their doors last year, “time consuming security procedures preclude us from going back and forth from open session to closed session” whenever classified issues are raised in the full committee markup, he wrote in a Jan. 8 response to an earlier Standing Committee request to open the markup.

The classification process is extremely important to preserving the national interest when it comes to keeping specific information secret, but to abuse the process as a means of keeping the markup of the NDAA behind closed doors is irresponsible. TPA continues to believe that the Senate should, like the House, allow for a more open process on NDAA.

There is good reason to allow for more amendments and more transparency when discussing how Congress funds DoD. This year we have seen several unfortunate cases of what happens when a rushed process takes over in getting large pieces of legislation passed. The House and Senate recently took up their own defense spending bills and TPA uncovered an appalling amount of earmarked funds. In total, nearly $20 billion in unrequested taxpayer money was added by members of Congress on top of what the Pentagon requested. Greater transparency would likely prevent this type of fast-tracked legislative maneuvering that perpetuates such waste. Unfortunately this isn’t new and TPA has been sounding the alarm on the process and the harmful impact it has on legislation, including last year’s NDAA:

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.

Even though the House passed their version of the NDAA in May, there is a possibility that items may be added to the Senate version that the House may not have foreseen. Events at the border, and of course in the Middle East and Russia have increased the possibility that certain considerations will be made to alter what may be appropriated for DoD in the coming fiscal year.

While TPA is mindful that National Security priorities change as events dictate, that doesn’t mean taxpayers shouldn’t be able to see what their money is being spent on to defend them and the interests of the United States. Transparency can prevent things like the abuse of Overseas Contingency Operations account (OCO), that has consistently been used as a slush fund for the Pentagon even though it was created for providing money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a recent op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy William D. Hartung gave a dire warning about how the OCO account may continue to be abused if not dealt with soon:

The ultimate proof that the OCO budget is threatening to become a permanent repository for unneeded projects and bad ideas is this item: the president’s proposed $5-billion Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, $4 billion of which would go to the Pentagon to “support increased partner capacity building … and increase the department’s flexibility in responding to emerging crises.” It’s hard to find a broader definition than that.

Defense officials revealed that current operations in Iraq are costing US taxpayers $7.5 million per day. President Obama had declared time and again that he and his administration had “ended the war in Iraq” but now we are seeing a different set of circumstances and the United States is once again involved. The NDAA is a perfect opportunity to lay out specifically what taxpayers are going to be funding in order for the United States to fulfill their obligations to secure the nation and its interests as it relates to Iraq. The Senate could receive a lot of support from transparency advocates if they allowed for a more open process and also considered increased measures to ensure that DoD is accountable for the money they get. Most notably, any attempt to include language that required an actual audit of the Pentagon would be a welcome change of pace.

Recent reports indicate that the events noted earlier in the Middle East may in fact jeopardize action on the NDAA when Congress returns from recess. Unfortunately, the likelihood that we’ll see a ‘fast-tracked’ process like last year only increases when there is talk of action being delayed. TPA will be watching closely and if the Senate continues to disregard transparency in this debate, taxpayers will know.