Military Space News  





. US Department Of Defense Operating A Giant Pork Barrel

A large serving of pork helps "Bill" bring home the bacon.
by Winslow T. Wheeler
UPI Outside View Commentator
Washington (UPI) Apr 04, 2006
With 2,966 examples costing about $11.1 billion, the pork in the 2006 DOD's new Defense Appropriations Bill, now law, is not hard to find. There are examples in almost every "title" of the bill, including parts most would probably hope to be pork-free.

For example, the Military Personnel Title, which funds military pay and benefits, is burdened with $1.6 million for "Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Activities" to pay for members of Congress to invite "up to 10 students from each state and territory" to participate in a "Youth Rendezvous" in some lucky congressional district.

Nor do past embarrassments seem to have slowed the process. Last year, a classified project associated with the Duke Cunningham scandal received a $3 million earmark. This year, the same activity saw its funding tripled to $9 million. Found and identified by Taxpayers for Common Sense under the heading "Classified Programs - C3I," a project labeled "Foreign Supply Assessment Center" is "earmarked" to receive the money in the R&D/Navy Title of the 2006 DOD Appropriations Act. TCS further reports that Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., was the prime mover of this "add-on."

Such examples of "pork" can be found in both the text of the legislation enacted into law by Congress and President George W. Bush, now enshrined as Public Law 109-148, and in something called the "Joint Explanatory Statement" that accompanies the text of the bill as it moves through its final stages of congressional approval. Both the text of the bill in final form and the JES constitute what is called a "conference report" on Capitol Hill.

The JES is especially important. Its ostensible purpose is to provide guidance to the executive branch, and the public, on Congress' intent and rationale for the various provisions in the legislation. And, indeed, there is often some material that is explanatory. However, most of the document simply lists pork projects.

Anyone can perform a simple exercise to find the pork, which appears most prominently in the R&D section -- Title IV of the legislation; R&D is virtually always the most pork-laden part of defense bills. Just turn to any page.

For example, for 2006, the text of the JES for R&D is 116 pages. A random page flip will usually lead the peruser to one of many tables. They go on for page, after page, after page. A table will show the name of the program requested by the president and the dollar amount he sought -- under the title "Budget Request". The table will also show what the House recommended, what the Senate recommended, and -- most importantly -- what the House-Senate "conferees," appointed by their respective bodies to resolve differences, recommended.

In the R&D title, and to lesser extents in the Procurement and Operation and Maintenance titles, the table will list many programs and dollar amounts not requested by the president. These are either to be wedged into a larger program sought by the president, or they are wholly new programs added under their own new category. In the R&D title, there will usually be more of these "line items" added by the conferees than the number of programs sought by the president.

The Joint Explanatory Statement provides little explanation of these items. Rarely is there any written text to explain them; they are typically just a program title. For example, one can find on page 315 "Crystal Materials for Electro-Optical Imaging and Communication: 1,300" -- meaning $1.3 million for that purpose.

A little illumination can be deduced from where in the JES the "add-on" is placed; in this case "Night Vision Technology" in the broader category of R&D for the Army. Nowhere is it stated what this really is, nor whether it is a one year or multi-year program with "out-year" costs, the location of the contractor for it and its track record of performance, what member of Congress added it, or what anybody in DOD or elsewhere thinks about it. It is quite literally "a pig in a poke."

In addition to the $1.6 million add-on for the Lewis and Clark rendezvous, some member added $4.7 million for "932nd Airlift Wing Personnel" in the Military Personnel Title on page 197.

In the O&M title, someone added $900,000 for "Memorial Day" on page 209 and $4 million for "Fleece Insulated Liners for ECWCS" on page 208.

The Procurement title contains $1.7 million for "Vacuum Pack Joint Single Place Life Raft" on page 249 for the Army and "Scathe View Communications Upgrade Program" for C-130J aircraft in the Air Force for $3.5 million on page 312.

Title VI, which is primarily for the Defense Health Program, contains many earmarks, including for "Alaska Federal Health Care Network" -- $2.2 million -- and Pacific Island Health Care Referral" -- $3.6 million, "Brown Tree Snakes" -- $1.7 million all on page 454, and breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer research totaling $217 million on page 455.

Section 8098 of the actual bill in the General Provisions Title on page 42 adds $3.85 million for the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Foundation, a museum in New York, $4.4 million for a "Center for Applied Science and Technologies at Jordan Valley Innovation Center," $500,000 for the "Westchester County World Trade Center Memorial," $850,000 for the Des Moines Memorial Park and Education Center," $1.5 million for the "Battleship Texas Foundation" (another museum) and more money for several other projects.

And so it goes for 2,966 items.

DOD is not permitted discretion in implementing the add-ons.

For "congressional interest items," DOD is specifically instructed that the amounts specified by Congress in the conference report, and its other reports, must be spent unless DOD specifically asks the appropriations committees for permission to change the amount in a "reprogramming" and the permission is granted. Such permission is rarely sought.

Congress has been increasing its defense pork. For the 2002 Defense Appropriations Act, which became law just four months after Sept. 11, 2001, the Congressional Research Service counted $7.2 billion in "earmarks." This was $1.1 billion more than the $6.1 billion in DOD earmarks CRS found in the 2000 legislation, and was almost $3 billion more than the $4.4 billion CRS found in the 1998 bills. Since Sept. 11, the pork bill has been going up as well: CRS found $8.5 billion in 2004. In 2006, Tax Payers for Common Sense counted $11.1 billion.

Over the years, Congress and its staff have become even more preoccupied with adding pork to defense bills, since it is essential to their political success.

Winslow T. Wheeler is director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank. United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.

Source: United Press International

Related Links
-

Joint Strike Fighter Program Gets The Design Blues
Washington (UPI) Apr 03, 2006
To replace the F-16 and to provide large numbers of multi-purpose aircraft in the next decade, the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps plan to buy the Joint Strike Fighter. A new report from the Government Accountability Office shows that clouds are gathering over the future of the JSF

.
Get Our Free Newsletters Via Email
  



  • NATO Top General Calls For Proactive Alliance
  • Unraveling The Agenda Of China In The Middle East
  • America Working Hard To Upgrades Its Asian Alliances
  • India's Training Of Iranian Military Could Dampen Nuclear Deal

  • Countdown To Operation Silence Mullahs
  • China Signs Key Trade Deals In Australia
  • Pressure Building On Israel And Palestine To Transform Relations
  • US Says Iran Weapons Tests A 'Concern'

  • HARPOON Block II Missiles For Korea
  • Iran Test-Fires High-Speed Underwater Missile
  • Lockheed Martin Submits Final Proposal Revision For APKWS II
  • NetFires Conducts Navy Ballistic Flight Test For NLOS-LS Missile

  • BMD Dreams And Realities
  • US Invites Indian Officers To STRATCOM
  • Ballistic Missile Numbers Fall Worldwide
  • Boeing, ATK Team for Israeli Short Range BMD Competition

  • Lockheed Martin Delivers F-22 Raptor To Second Operational Squadron
  • CAESAR Triumphs As New Gen Of Radar Takes Flight
  • Northrop Grumman to Provide F-16 Fleet To Greek Air Force
  • US Offers India Advanced Fighter Aircraft

  • New Products For Mini And Micro UAVs Save Space And Volume, Boost Endurance
  • NGC Enhancing Network-Centric Warfighter Capabilities With Fire Scout UAV
  • QinetiQ Develops Antenna That Extends UAV Reach
  • Goldeneye-50 Completes Its 100th Flight

  • A Civil War By Any Other Name
  • US Choices In Iraq Being Engulfed By Unforeseen War
  • Drifting Towards Civil War In Iraq
  • Russia Calls US Charge Of Helping Iraq 'Politically-Motivated'

  • Work Begins On Arming Trident Submarines With Non-Nuclear Weapons
  • Lockheed Martin Delivers New F-16 For Poland Peace Sky Program
  • Center Adapts Technology For F-35 Wind Tunnel Tests
  • US To Test 700-tonne Explosive

  • The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2006 - SpaceDaily.AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA PortalReports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additionalcopyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement