Northern Virginia's high-tech defense industry has enjoyed explosive growth in recent years, thanks in no small part to its powerful and influential friends — congressmen Tom Davis (R-11), Jim Moran (D-8) and Frank Wolf (R-10). The three Northern Virginia congressmen have shepherded the growth of the defense industry by steering millions of taxpayer dollars to local defense corporations.
"We're thick as thieves with these guys," said Davis of his relationship with Northern Virginia defense contractors. The congressmen have boosted local defense firms by inserting spending items — known as earmarks — into larger appropriations bills that have resulted in lucrative contracts to perform specific defense and homeland security tasks. The practice of earmarking also allows congressmen to direct money to their districts, paying for services such as road improvements, medical research and local law enforcement equipment. In Northern Virginia, Wolf has secured $25 million in earmarks to combat gangs. Davis helped obtain $28.6 million to widen I-66. And Moran recently got $1 million for George Mason University to study ways to protect buildings against car bomb explosions. Earmarking for private defense companies is a less-well known process. Conducted largely behind closed doors, it allows congressmen to promote economic development and push cutting-edge defense technology by helping along emerging defense firms with tax dollars. Little is known about which local defense companies have benefited most from the congressional largesse, as earmark requests are not available to the public and exempt from federal public records laws. Davis, Moran and Wolf all rejected a request by the Connection Newspapers to release even part of their history of earmarks for private defense firms. Yet few congressmen have a reputation for being as effective at obtaining earmarks for the defense industry as Northern Virginia's representatives, according to interviews with defense lobbyists. "They recognize the value of our industry," said Paul Hirsch, president of Madison Government Affairs, Inc., a defense lobbying firm. "Each of them are very much in tune with the needs of the defense industry. We get very good coverage from our three congressmen."
EARMARKS for private defense companies have come into focus over the past year, as former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) was sentenced in March to eight years in prison for accepting $2.4 million in bribes and gifts from defense contractors in exchange for earmarks. Moran — who is the ranking Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee — also drew notice in June when he said that he would "earmark the sh*t" out of the subcommittee, should his Party take control of the House on Nov. 7. As a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Moran, whose district includes the Pentagon and who voted against the Iraq war, has been especially skillful at obtaining defense earmarks. Davis referred to Moran as a "master" of defense earmarking. In 2005, there were 2,506 earmarks in the defense appropriations bill, worth a total of $9 billion. Ten years earlier, the bill had only 270 earmarks worth a total of $4.2 billion. Out of the Pentagon's $391.2 billion budget in 2005, the $9 billion worth of earmarks comprised 2.3 percent of the total, according to the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress.
The 2006 defense bill appears to be packed with more earmarks, according to the non-profit Taxpayers for Common Sense. The group found 2,837 earmarks worth $11.2 billion in the 2006 defense appropriations bill. The total number of earmarks for all federal appropriations grew by 283 percent over the past decade to 15,877 earmarks in 2005 worth a total of $47.4 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
DEFENSE EARMARKS for private companies generally fall into one of two categories: "plus-ups" and "Research, Development, Test and Evaluation." With "plus-ups," a defense company lobbyist approaches a congressman to request that more money be added to an existing contract with the Department of Defense. Research and development earmarks are often pet projects of emerging defense technology that a congressman champions to the Defense Department. Of the $72 billion appropriated for research and development in the 2006 defense budget bill, $5.7 billion is slated for earmarked projects, according to Keith Ashdown, of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
In the cases of both "plus-ups" and research and development earmarks, the recipients tend to be smaller "boutique" defense contractors that perform one defense service exceptionally well, such as fuel-cell technology, body armor design or submarine guidance software. Larger companies, such as Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, tend to obtain defense contracts through the Pentagon's traditional procurement process. The congressmen said they view earmarks as part of their constitutional power of appropriating funds. If the executive branch does not propose funding a particular project which congress feels is worthwhile, then earmarks are the lawmakers' only recourse. THE TOP CRITICISM of earmarks is that the process lacks disclosure, transparency and accountability, raising the specter that congressmen are doing favors for campaign contributors.
"With earmarks, congressmen aren't accountable to anyone," said Ashdown. "There's not one iota of transparency." Earmarks can benefit the nation, helping spark economic growth and keeping the country more secure with cutting-edge defense technology, said Susan Tolchin, a George Mason University professor of public policy. At the same time, Tolchin said, earmarking is a "shadowy process" that can invite ethical abuses. "It's a way congressmen can bring home the money to their district and it's a way they reward their supporters and campaign contributors," said Tolchin, who is co-author of the book "Glass Houses: Congressional Ethics and the Politics of Venom." The defense industry has been a top campaign contributor to Moran and Davis over the years, giving them a combined total of $1.6 million in campaign cash, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Wolf has received far less, collecting $336,554 in defense contributions since 1989. The earmarking process is secretive for several reasons, according to senior congressional staffers. Moran's press secretary, Austin Durrer, said defense earmark requests are "top secret" because of the sensitive nature of emerging defense projects. Others said that disclosing earmarks could be politically damaging if a congressman fails to obtain funding for a particular earmark or if they have received a campaign contribution from an earmark's recipient.
DEFENSE LOBBYISTS in search of an earmark approach Moran's office "all the time," Moran said. Approximately one out of every five to 10 earmark requests that Moran submits is funded in the appropriations bill, he said. "Tens of thousands of people in Northern Virginia are supported by defense appropriations," said Moran. "Earmarks are a small percentage of the Pentagon procurement. It's a way of making sure that Northern Virginia is getting its fair share." As an example of a local earmark, Moran cited "Project M" by the Alexandria defense firm Vibration & Sound Solutions Limited. Over the course of several years, Moran earmarked $12.34 million for the project, which involved the use of magnetic levitation technology for blast-mitigation seats in military vehicles and as shock-absorbing seats in high-speed Navy SEAL boats. But the Navy scrapped that model of high-speed boat, rendering VSSL's shock-absorbing seats obsolete. Consequently, the federal money dried up and the company closed its North Royal Street factory earlier this year. VSSL's president Robert Conkling and his wife gave Moran a total of $19,000 in campaign contributions since 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Moran dismissed questions of whether campaign contributions play a role in the earmarking process. "There's no quid-pro-quo — at least, not with our office," Moran said. Hirsch, the defense lobbyist, concurred. A campaign contribution is no guarantee that an earmark will be submitted, he said. "I tell my clients, if you think you can make a campaign contribution and that's going to be a quid-pro-quo, then you don't understand the process," Hirsch said. "But I do tell them that they should build a relationship with congressmen. That means attending fund-raisers or sending a lobbyist to attend fund-raisers on their behalf." DAVIS GAVE the example of REI Systems Inc., an Annandale high-tech government contractor. In 2004 and 2005, Davis secured a total of $2.7 million in earmarks in the defense appropriations bill for the company. The earmarks were both "plus-ups" for additional cash on an existing U.S. Army contact for MaintenanceMax software, which helps maintain and repair Army watercraft and Apache helicopters. "Through the DOD appropriations process, I try to help bring the power and innovation of small business to the challenges faced by our armed forces in defending our nation," Davis. "My support for REI is a prime example. Federal funding for their cutting-edge software fuels the local economy, adds jobs, generates technological advances that otherwise may not see the light of day, and makes us all safer as well." Like Moran, Davis says that campaign contributions have no influence on his earmark requests. "A lot of these companies have never done anything for me politically," he said. "I don't think campaign contributions have anything to do with it." As chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, he is allowed to submit 15 earmark requests per appropriations bill under informal rules, Davis said. Moran is allotted an estimated 50 earmark requests, as he serves on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. A typical congressman, Davis said, is allowed only five earmark requests. FOR HIS PART, Wolf declined to cite an example of a private defense firm for which he sought an earmark. "Defense isn't really my area,” said Wolf. “We just send out the requests to the Department of Defense and they make the judgment whether it should get funded or not. We let them look at it and decide if it’s meritorious." Like his colleagues, Wolf denied that campaign contributions play a role. "No, no, no, I don't think so," he said. Wolf said he believes the process needs more transparency, but he refused to disclose any earmarks he has submitted over his 26 years in Congress. "Frankly, I think everything ought to be open," he said. "Hopefully we will pass earmark reform."
