GovernmentExecutive.com

Members of Congress appropriated more than $18 million in Defense Department earmarks in fiscal 2007 for projects that either were not needed or failed to support the Pentagon's mission, according to a report released on Friday.

The Defense Department inspector general reviewed 219 earmarks, each valued at less than $15 million, in the 2007 Defense appropriations bill. Those earmarks were worth a combined $5.87 billion.

While the majority supported Defense Department goals, at least five did not, according to the report. For example, the IG determined a $2 million earmark to support the Army's Night Hunter/Night Hunter II program was unnecessary. The Army agreed and told the IG that it "has no requirements" for the electro-optic and infrared system, which is used for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting. It has since placed those funds on hold.

"Army personnel at Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate stated that they had not managed nor had they been involved in a program known as Night Hunter," the report said.

The IG also raised concerns about a $10 million Navy earmark to digitize Defense manuals. Department policy states that when converting hard copy data to electronic formats, the preferred provider should be the Defense Logistics Agency's Document Automation and Production Service. DAPS, however, was not involved or consulted for this earmark.

Other earmarks appeared inconsistent with Defense's primary mission, the IG said. They included:

• $1.1 million for the Air Force Research Laboratory to increase the number of students in kindergarten through college studying science, technology, engineering and math.
• $2.4 million, through the Office of Economic Adjustment, to provide Victorville, Calif. -- home to the former George Air Force Base -- with economic support for the installation of roads, water, sewer and utilities. Since the base was decommissioned in 1992, Victorville has seen an infusion of economic growth and no longer requires Defense assistance, the IG found.
• $2.6 million, through the Contracting Center of Excellence, to encourage industrial development through the creation of a nanotechnology research center in Springfield, Mo.

The IG found that this earmark "redevelops buildings for the benefit of private industry and a university, and therefore does not contribute to the DoD mission of providing military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country." The Center for Contracting Excellence agreed with the IG's conclusion.

In addition, a $6.4 million earmark to foster partnerships with universities and industry to support small businesses included some expenditures that lacked any Defense Department connection.

In one instance, funds were used to pay for the travel of a team of high school students to compete in a National Association for Homebuilders competition. Additional funds were spent on a 10-day scientific expedition for students focused on geology and oceanography.

It is nearly impossible to determine the congressional sponsor for any of the earmarks. The 2008 authorization bills were the first in which lawmakers were required to attach their names to their earmarks.

The Defense Department did not respond to a request for comment about the IG's findings.

The report was requested by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a longtime and vocal critic of congressional earmarks.

In March, the IG reported on earmarks in the 2007 authorization bill worth more than $15 million. The report reviewed 70 such earmarks and found two, totaling $340 million, that "did not sufficiently advance the DoD mission and goals to justify the funding."

The 2007 Defense appropriations bill contained 2,656 congressional earmarks totaling $12.14 billion.

The IG also is performing a separate, more detailed audit, addressing the contract administration of earmarks in the fiscal 2005 Defense appropriation bill.

Tomorrow: The 2009 Defense authorization bill includes billions in earmarked funds for the world's largest federal contractors.

COMMENTS

• I support Sen Coburn's efforts to shine the light of day on earmarks. I agree with the post that said earmarks need to have names attached to them, so we the voters can hold them accountable. This is exactly why the services can't retire old weapon systems and acquire new ones in a timely manner -- Congressional interference. Then the taxpayers rightly get offended and pressure Presidents and Congress to cut the Defense budget...in a time of war! Congress blusters but in reality they are the big offenders since constitutionally they control the purse strings. Sam Posted July 24, 2008 7:39 AM
• If each earmark were less than $15M and there were 219 earmarks, how do you arrive at >$5B worth of earmarks? The total must be <$3.3B. Mike Posted July 23, 2008 2:18 PM
• The Intelligence Committee did the same thing with the planning and funding of the Afghanistan war. Money went to pals like Kennedy friends, special forces and PC friends and constituents of members. It went through USIAD, so members like Shays and others were making sure the dems got paid for Afghanistan - PC and Green Berets. So, we see successes like USIP and others attached to the Afghansitan war. The funding of the war made it obvious NATO operates differently than Iraq and it's a penalty for not going into Iraq. It's considered every man for himself and a bunch of spies. The earmarks made all this obvious. HTie Posted July 23, 2008 9:15 AM