I think that the earmarks are even higher than $4 billion.  One trick I have seen is ‘plus up’ monies (monies added to the budget by Congress) may not be necessarily earmarked for a specific company, but are very narrowly defined so that only one company can fulfill. When these tailor-made projects are put out for a “competitive” bid, surprise, there’s only one qualified bidder.  This has happened on many occasions with military projects in Hawai’i.  That way, technically, the project doesn’t have to be disclosed as an earmark.

>><<

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126144587379801037.html

DECEMBER 22, 2009

Defense Bill Earmarks Total $4 Billion

By JOHN D. MCKINNON and BRODY MULLINS

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers set aside more than $4 billion in earmarks in the just-approved 2010 defense appropriations bill, and watered down efforts to curb the practice of targeting spending for programs in members’ districts.

The earmarking total for 2010 represented a 14% drop from last year’s defense bill, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group that is critical of the process. The House included language in its defense bill that could subject earmarks for for-profit companies to full and open competition. But the Senate resisted, meaning that senators apparently will continue to set aside spending for favored companies, the group said.

The $626 billion bill passed the Senate on Saturday, and President Barack Obama signed it into law Monday. The bill also includes brief extensions of jobless benefits and transportation spending.

The White House on Monday touted the federal government’s efforts to become more efficient, highlighting a new report that shows federal agencies have identified more than $19 billion in contract savings for fiscal year 2010. The administration says the government is now on track to meet its goal of saving $40 billion annually by fiscal year 2011.

The administration has said the savings would come from terminating unnecessary contracts, ending an over-reliance on contractors, and reducing the use of high-risk contracts. Federal spending on contracts has doubled since 2002, reaching $540 billion last year.

But the earmarks in the defense-spending bill could point to a longer-term clash between lawmakers and Mr. Obama, who campaigned on a pledge of changing the way Congress allocates earmarks. Mr. Obama has said that earmarks can be a waste of government funds and wants more public information about how they are awarded by Congress.

Member of Congress in both parties defend the use of earmarks and say that they are often for worthy projects.

Among the earmarks in the Defense bill: $18.9 million for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate sponsored by Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.); a $23 million item for the Hawaii Healthcare Network, sponsored by Senate appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii); a $20 million appropriation for the National World War II museum in New Orleans, by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu and Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana; and $5 million for a Heritage Center at San Francisco’s historic Presidio, an item included by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her “community funding requests.”

Ms. Landrieu said in a statement that she was “proud” to secure the museum funding, which will be used to pay for the construction of a new wing that will include aircraft, tanks and landing vehicles used during the war. A spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said the Presidio item was requested by the Presidio Trust, adding that it was for rehabilitation of the Officers Club, a local landmark.

One of the larger spending items is a $300 million appropriation touted by Reps. Jim Moran (D., Va.) and Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), among others, to improve their region’s overstressed transportation system. The road widenings are justified by expanding operations at area military facilities, including new hospital facilities.

“Congress is committed to building world class facilities for our wounded warriors in the national capital region, and these funds are an integral part of that effort,” Mr. Van Hollen said.

As usual, many of the top recipients of earmarks in the defense bill were high-ranking appropriators: Mr. Inouye got 37 earmarks totaling $198.2 million, while ranking Republican Thad Cochran (R., Miss.) got 45 totaling $167 million. Mr. Inouye also is chairman of the defense subcommittee, and Mr. Cochran is the ranking member.

On the House side, defense subcommittee chairman John Murtha (D., Pa.) sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $76.5 million, while ranking Republican C.W. “Bill” Young got 36 totaling $83.7 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Mr. Young “is doing his job,” said a spokesman. Other lawmakers’ offices didn’t immediately respond.

Mr. Obama persuaded lawmakers not to add funding earmarks to the $787 billion stimulus package that Congress approved earlier this year. Not long after that, Congress approved a $410 billion spending bill that was full of earmarks.

Mr. Obama avoided a fight at the time by saying that the legislation was a holdover from the previous session of Congress, when Republicans were in control. At the time, he said the legislation should “mark an end to the old way of doing business.”

Write to John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com and Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com