The Department of Defense (DOD) has received the most earmarks at the highest cost to taxpayers in each year since FY 1994, a trend that continued in FY 2019. The number of earmarks in the bill rose by 28.1 percent, from 121 in FY 2018 to 155 in FY 2019. The cost of these earmarks increased by 4.4 percent, from $9 billion in FY 2018 to $9.4 billion in FY 2019. This constitutes 61.4 percent of the $15.3 billion in earmarks contained in the 12 appropriations bills for FY 2019.
$1,784,500,000 for seven earmarks for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), including eight additional planes for the Air Force, six for the Navy, and two for the Marine Corps. The money earmarked for the F-35 represents 11.7 percent of the $15.3 billion in earmarks for FY 2019.
The acquisition misadventures of the JSF program have been well-documented, as the program has been plagued by an abundance of persistent issues. In development for nearly 18 years and eight years behind schedule, total acquisition costs now exceed $428 billion, nearly double the initial estimate of $233 billion. An April 22, 2019 Bloomberg article analyzing the latest DOD Selected Acquisition Report noted that the lifetime operation and maintenance costs of the most expensive weapon system in history will total approximately $1.2 trillion. This is a 20 percent increase over the $1 trillion in JSF lifetime operation and maintenance costs as reported in April 2015 by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
As in each preceding year, 2019 brought more bad news for Lockheed Martin, the F-35 manufacturer. A March 15, 2019 DOD Office of Inspector General (IG) report noted that the F-35 Joint Program Office had failed to track property valued at $2.1 billion that it had lent or leased to Lockheed Martin. The report stated that this oversight could impact JSF operational readiness.
the F-15X because it is “slightly less expensive for procurement than the F-35, but it’s more than 50 percent cheaper to operate over time and it has twice as many hours in terms of how long it lasts.”
Many of the problems with the F-35 program can be traced to the decision to develop and procure the aircraft simultaneously. Whenever problems have been identified, contractors needed to go back and make changes to aircraft that were already assembled, adding to overall costs. Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum on July 24, 2015, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James stated, “The biggest lesson I have learned from the F-35 is never again should we be flying an aircraft while we’re building it.”
These include the choice to address existing flaws after full production is initiated. The report identified 966 “open deficiencies” in the JSF program, including 111 “must fix” problems.
Other dilemmas relating to the JSF’s utility in future conflict have also cropped up. A May 2018 House Armed Services Committee (HASC) report revealed that the Navy’s JSF, the F-35C, may lack sufficient range to function adequately in a future war.
Rather than asking pressing questions as to whether the F-35 remains worthy of further commitment, members of Congress provided earmarks for 16 additional aircraft. Upon completion of the development phase, additional funding will be needed to retrofit the 18 planes purchased via earmarks in FY 2019.
The notion that the DOD should double down on the most expensive weapons platform in history earned Rep. Turner CAGW’s Porker of the Month for April 2019.
Since FY 2001, members of Congress have added 24 earmarks for the JSF program, costing $6.9 billion.
$1,470,300,000 for 34 earmarks for health and disease research under the Defense Health Program (DHP), which is a 6.1 percent increase in cost over the 31 earmarks worth $1,386,100,000 in FY 2018, and the most ever earmarked for the program.
A March 14, 2012 Washington Post article stated that then-DOD Comptroller Robert Hale proposed decreasing the Pentagon health budget in part by eliminating “one-time congressional adds,” which he said totaled $603.6 million in FY 2012 for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.
On June 17, 2015, then-SASC Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that funding for medical research should only be included in the DOD bill if the secretary of defense determined it was directly related to the military. He said that “over the past two decades, lawmakers have appropriated nearly $7.3 billion for medical research that was ‘totally unrelated’ to the military.”
Since FY 1996, members of Congress have added 736 earmarks for the DHP, costing taxpayers $13.3 billion.
$960,000,000 for two earmarks for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), including $950 million for two additional ships, and $10 million for training software. The amount provided in FY 2019 is the largest amount ever earmarked for the vessel, and a 76.4 percent increase from the $544,075,000 earmarked in FY 2018, the second largest amount ever earmarked for the LCS.
Known to some inside (and outside) the Navy as the “Little Crappy Ship,” the LCS has been a disaster since its inception, with problems that include a vaguely defined mission, a lack of firepower and survivability, and design flaws leading to cracks in the hull and corrosion. The number of ships the Navy intends to purchase has been cut in half, from 55 to 28, while the cost per ship has increased by 117.3 percent, from $220 million to $478 million.
The program has become so troubled that the Pentagon took active measures to undermine the bad press. According to a March 2017 GAO report, the DOD Office of Prepublication and Security Review, which is charged with reviewing information to be released to the public, blocked critical information regarding cost growth in the LCS program.
A 2014 Navy evaluation of potential alternatives to the LCS rejected other ship designs and opted instead to modify the LCS slightly and redesignate it as a frigate, but problems continued. A December 1, 2016 GAO report disagreed with the planned acquisition of the final two old-model ships in FY 2017, citing their obsolete design. The report also criticized the Navy’s request for 12 frigates in FY 2018, questioning “whether a ship that costs twice as much yet delivers less capability than planned warrants an additional investment of nearly $14 billion.”
The Navy faces a larger issue related to the routine poor performance of the LCS: the substandard state of warships at the time it receives them from contractors. A March 20, 2019 Roll Call article reported that the Navy has made a habit of accepting defective or unfinished ships, then paying additional money to the shipbuilders responsible to fix the existing flaws. While this trend has plagued a number of naval platforms, it is particularly visible in the LCS program. A July 2017 GAO report noted that the two versions of the LCS so far have combined for a total of 2,206 uncorrected deficiencies when ships were delivered, and entered service with a combined 286 such problems.
In a March 20, 2018 HASC hearing, committee member Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), whose district hosts the Austal USA shipyard that builds one of the two versions of the LCS, reproached Navy Secretary Richard Spencer for requesting only one LCS in FY 2019. Rep. Byrne stated, “Unfortunately, your acquisition plan for small surface combatants fails to provide for an enduring industrial base. In fact, it will erode the industrial base for those ships,” and reducing the program to one annual ship will result in “thousands of shipyard workers” being laid off. Parochial politics should not drive defense strategy.
Since FY 2003, at least eight members of Congress have added 23 earmarks costing $2.1 billion for the LCS program.
$120,000,000 for two earmarks for the National Guard Counter-Drug Program, a 14.3 percent reduction from the $140 million provided in FY 2018. Formerly earmarked to individual states and congressional districts, the program, which allows for the use of military personnel in domestic drug enforcement operations, is now funded in one bundle as a work-around to the earmark moratorium.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, with a budget of $2.3 billion, is already responsible for these activities. Since FY 2001, there have been 72 earmarks costing taxpayers $902.1 million for the National Guard Counter-Drug Program.
$65,000,000 for wing replacements for the A-10, an aircraft that is meant to be replaced by the F-35.
Air Force leadership appears to have seen enough of the F-35 to determine it is not up to the job of providing CAS. According to a February 2, 2018 Defense News article, the service is in the initial stages of exploring a new CAS aircraft to replace the A-10. Since FY 2000, members of Congress have added 13 earmarks for the A-10 costing $224.2 million.
$55,400,000 for four earmarks for the B-52 Stratofortress, consisting of two earmarks totaling $40.4 million for infrared threat defense and two earmarks totaling $15 million for mission data recorders. Each of the earmarks was added in conference, and none received a budget request.
The FY 2019 earmark is a 559.5 percent increase in cost from those provided in FY 2010. Since FY 1997, members of Congress have added 35 earmarks for the B-52 costing $551.5 million.
$38,500,000 for four earmarks funding industrial base analysis and sustainment: $15 million for “large scale classified electron beam welding,” $10 million to “expand manufacturing capability for cold rolled aluminum,” $10 million for “risk reduction for tungsten defense products,” and $3.5 million for a program increase. The language in the appropriations bill provides no further information regarding the location or purpose for the funding.
$30,000,000 for the Starbase Youth Program, which teaches science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) to at-risk youth in multiple Finite national security spending should never be utilized for a jobs program.locations at or near military bases around the country. After a one-year break, legislators equaled the record FY 2017 earmark for Starbase, meaning the last two earmarks for Starbase are tied for the largest ever.
Since FY 2001, members of Congress have added 11 earmarks costing taxpayers $154 million for Starbase, including an earmark worth $1.9 million in FY 2010 by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and then-Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.).
An April 2018 GAO annual report on program duplication, overlap, and fragmentation found that $2.9 billion was spent in FY 2016 across 13 agencies for 163 STEM programs. Former President Obama proposed the consolidation or elimination of 31 STEM programs in FY 2015, and a further 20 STEM programs in FY 2016. President Trump’s FY 2020 Major Savings and Reforms recommended eliminating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Office of STEM Engagement, saving $110 million.
$28,000,000 for alternative energy research, a 12 percent increase from the $25 million earmarked in FY 2018. Since FY 2004, Congress has used funding meant for national security to insert 29 earmarks worth $342.9 million for this purpose, even though the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act supplies billions annually for alternative energy research.
A March 8, 2018 Defense News article detailed the Navy’s plans to cancel its fuel-efficient hybrid electric drive in 34 of its 35 destroyers. Canceling the program makes sense, as a 2011 Rand report funded by the Pentagon found that “there is no direct benefit to the Department of Defense or the services from using alternative fuels.”
Alternative fuels are notoriously expensive. A July 27, 2015 report found that between FYs 2007 and 2014, the Pentagon “purchased about 2.0 million gallons of alternative fuel for testing purposes, at a cost of about $58.6 million. Over the same period, it purchased about 32.0 billion gallons of petroleum fuel at a cost of about $107.2 billion.” This means the alternative fuel cost nearly 10 times as much as petroleum.
Source-2019 congressional pig book report,sasc, gao, dhp, dod, lcs,