Earmarks involve designating funds in spending legislation that must be used for a very particular purpose. While they can be a useful tool, they can also be a magnet for shady dealings and last-minute surprises. Indicted Naval ace and former Congressman Randy Cunningham’s activities revolved around earmarks, for instance; so, too, did the recent scandal that revolves around Congressman Jack Murtha.

Analysts from a watchdog group called Taxpayers for Common Sense claim that 30% of the FY 2005-2006’s $64 billion in earmarks were connected with the Department of Defense. This is possible; past US national defense budgets have included everything from renovations to Washington’s baseball stadium (based on the standings, a donation to hire players might have been better), to Utah watershed conservation, to the initial funding that got the famous Predator drones going.

As it happens, new House of Congress rules passed in January 2007 provide more transparency into the sponsors, recipients, and purposes of earmarks. A May 23, 2007 TCS release mines some of that data from the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act passed by the House last week, and presents highlights. Fortunately, DID has covered a number of these issues, and can help shed more light on most of the examples mentioned…

All items in the TCS release have been included below, verbatim:

• “Twenty-five members signed on to spend $294 million for General Dynamics Land Systems to produce additional Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. The House bill cut back on Strykers in favor of the newer—and reportedly more effective—Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. Five Oregon representatives signed a joint letter in favor of sending the brigades to the Oregon National Guard, and 10 representatives from Michigan pointed out that since the Stryker is primarily manufactured there, the proposed cutbacks “would have a very negative effect” on the state’s economy.”

Stryker ICV with
Anti-RPG Slat Armor
(click to view full)

A Stryker Brigade Combat Team is an entire military unit with a mix of different LAV-III based wheeled armored vehicles. As the House Armed Services Committee notes, redirected funds cover 78 new Stryker vehicles, plus force protection upgrades to existing vehicles.

Strykers have garnered praise for their performance in Iraq (less so in Afghanistan, where the terrain is unsuited to their use), and these wheeled vehicles also lend themselves particularly well to National Guard type civil emergencies. At present, just one SBCT in Pennsylvania (56th Brigade of the 28th Infantry Division, mechanized) is slated to be a Guard unit, so lobbying for more isn’t surprising. But 78 Strykers won’t get you an SBCT for your state.

Meanwhile, those protective upgrades may be needed – and so may extra Strykers. LAV-III vehicles aren’t as resistant to mines as comparable MRAP vehicles, and they have begun taking casualties in Diyala Province as enemies adapt to them. This is creating a question mark over the platform. Overall tactics and concept of operations have also played a role in the losses, by making US forces more vulnerable to such attacks.

Meanwhile, DID has covered developments around the blast-resistant MRAP vehicles, whose structures are specially designed to resist the land mine blasts that remain the #1 killer of US troops in Iraq.

• “Seven lawmakers, including Missouri representatives Todd Akin®, Kenny Hulshof® and Russ Carnahan (D), directed $2.4 billion to Boeing for 10 additional C-17 Globemasters, a perpetually endangered airlift aircraft that is that is primarily assembled in St. Louis.”

USAF C-17, Kandahar
(click to view full)

The C-17 production line has been facing shutdown without additional orders, even though air force commanders have said that the current pace of combat operations is taking up to 5 years off the lifespan of each plane and the C-5 Galaxy’s refurbishment program remains unproven.

A production line restart could cost billions in the event that problems arise with the C-5M conversions, or the USA discovers that more C-17s are needed later.

These additions are similar to last year’s Congressional addition, and will keep the production line open for another year. Like last year’s addition, however, they represent a band-aid solution to the larger issue of properly defining, funding, and executing US military lift requirements. There was a Pentagon report on this subject – but many observers think it was flawed beyond repair by assumptions that made very little sense.

• “Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) sponsored $480 million for Rolls Royce North America Inc. of Indianapolis for F-35 strike fighter engines. North Carolina is one of eight states being considered by Rolls Royce for new potential facilities.”

This is another issue that has triggered Congressional intervention for the second year in a row, in support of the GE/Rolls Royce F136. The Pratt & Whitney F135 is currently flying on F-35 prototypes and test aircraft, and will equip most low-rate initial production aircraft.

A recent Government Accountability Office report believes the dual-engine program has the potential to save a couple billion dollars in procurement and maintenance costs, even after development costs for a second engine are subtracted. Having two engines may also improve performance. This has been the case with the Pratt & Whitney/ GE dual-engine program for the F-16 – which see below – and now the F-15 as well.

• “A coalition of eight representatives from Maine, Connecticut, Oklahoma and Georgia handed $29.4 million to Pratt & Whitney, a subsidiary of United Technologies of East Hartford, CT, to upgrade the engine of the F-16 for the Air National Guard. The engines are built and maintained in facilities located in Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia.”

See above re: the F-35’s dual-engine program. Most ANG aircraft fly with Pratt & Whitney’s F100 engine. Many US F-16s, however, fly with GE’s F110, which delivers more thrust. In response, Pratt & Whitney has been working hard to improve its F-100 engines in order to narrow the gap. Which wouldn’t be the case for a sole supplier.

If this addition survives Senate reconciliation, Congressional reps. get to pose for pictures with cool looking aircraft, and explain how their state’s ANG has better-performing fighters because of them.

• “Seven representatives—including Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), Thelma Drake (R-VA)and Robert Scott (D-VA)—earmarked $588 million for an additional Virginia Class Submarine, produced at various locations in Virginia, Indiana, Ohio and Connecticut.”

Virginia Class cutaway
(click to view full: Large!)

Actually, the funds cover a nuclear reactor for a Virginia Class submarine, which saves a good deal of money over past submarine reactors in that it never requires a refueling operation during the submarine’s lifetime that costs hundreds of millions of dollars. These attack submarines are currently built at the rate of 1 per year, under a joint program between General Dynamics Electric Boat (Connecticut) and Northrop Grumman Newport News (Virginia).

Acceleration of production to 2/year was supposed to be happening already, but it has been pushed back more than once. This is creating layoff issues in some districts, and the House Armed Services’ Seapower & Expeditionary Forces subcommittee has been pushing for production acceleration on both the Democrat (Gene Taylor, MS) and Republican (Roscoe Bartlett, MD) sides of the aisle. Since submarines have very fixed lifespans due to the stresses of compression at depth, they are concerned about the future size of the US submarine force if new sub production remains slow.

• “Representatives Robert Andrews (D-NJ) and Jim Saxon (R-NJ) earmarked $22 million for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Signal Processor, manufactured at Lockheed Martin’s Moorestown, NJ plant.”

Cooperative defense
(click to view full)

This DID article covers the new ABM DSP in the context of broader upgrades to the AEGIS system, which is the USA’s primary fleet defense radar and is also in service or ordered by Australia, Japan, Norway, South Korea, and Spain. The upgraded AEGIS system will form a key component of the US and Japan’s initial missile defense systems.

The question to look at is whether the funding is gratuitous, or removes a time or technology bottleneck that lets the USA field upgraded AEGIS radars faster.

• Ranking Member Duncan Hunter (R-CA) directed $30 million to L-3 Communications in his San Diego district for an “affordable weapon system.” Hunter, a border security aficionado, also inserted $8 million to continue building 14 miles of fence on the San Diego/Mexico border and construct “at least 10 miles of double fencing” at the Marine Corps Station in Yuma, Arizona.”

“Affordable weapon”
(click to view full)

The Affordable Weapon System program is aimed at creating a cruise missile that has shorter range and a smaller warhead than the Tomahawk Block IV, but is built of off-the-shelf components and costs about 1/5 – 1/7 as much (around $100,000). Note that the Tomahawk’s price went down almost 50% to $750,000 in Block IV, even though its capabilities increased. Question #1 is whether those capabilities are always needed, and whether a lower-end missile could execute many of the missions currently using Tomahawks for less. Question #2 involves how many launch tubes you want to fill with less capable “Affordable Weapon” missiles.

Yuma, meanwhile, is right next to the Mexican border; Rep. Hunter appears to be moving to lock down base security at this facility. Note, too, that some areas around Yuma are weapons testing facilities.

• “Representatives Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) and Jerry McNerney (D-CA) added $30 million for the “national ignition campaign,” an element of the nuclear stockpile stewardship program at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The laboratory is located in McNerney’s district, but closely abuts Tauscher’s. Tauscher also inserted $5 million for “National Nuclear Security Administration laboratories and participating universities,” which would include Lawrence Livermore and its operator, the University of California.”

Anything with the words “ignition,” “campaign,” and “nuclear stockpile” in the same sentence makes us nervous – but DID hasn’t covered this area.

• “Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) inserted $68 million for B-52 bomber upgrades at Minot and Barksdale Air Force bases in North Dakota and Louisiana.”

We’d be interested to know if this earmark works to upgrade the B-52 bombers themselves – and if so, how – or the bases at Minot and Barksdale. More specifics from TCS would be helpful here.

• Mark Udall (D-CO) obtained $3.5 million to develop a “Contextual Arabic Blog and Slang Analysis Program.” The program would be developed by and Acxiom Insight, an information technology company in Broomfield, CO, and its subsidiary Harbinger Technologies Group Inc. of Virginia.

DID hasn’t covered this area. Having said that, magazines like The Economist are beginning to notice that if you want to monitor what’s really happening on the ground in the Arab world, as opposed to relying on official state media et. al., blogs are quickly becoming the go-to source.

We’re inclined to congratulate Rep. Udall for being more on the ball than than many people in the intelligence community, and acting on this understanding.

UPDATE: Readers interested in a more complete earmark database can now find it, courtesy of TCS.