Fiscal discipline, thy home may be at the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). Analysis of the Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) accounts in the SASC version of the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) reveals much greater restraint in what we call “backdoor earmarking.”

Each year the President proposes a federal budget for the coming fiscal year. And each year, Congress conducts hearings to query the decisions behind that budget request. In the case of the Pentagon, military service chiefs and uniformed brass spend hundreds of hours preparing for, testifying at, and responding to “Questions for the Record” from those hearings. That back-and-forth between the two branches of government then lead to each of the four committees directly involved in finalizing the Pentagon budget producing different drafts of legislation to set policy and spending for the Pentagon for the next fiscal year.

Taxpayers for Common Sense is tracking the trend of adding suspiciously specific RDT&E projects into the Pentagon’s budget as the FY23 budget proceeds. These highly speculative research projects are, for the most part, not requested by the Pentagon – not even on their so-called Unfunded Priorities Lists (UPLs). But Members of Congress, looking to keep a local defense facility busy and employing constituents, are eager to support these projects.

Trends are both obvious and a little perplexing in the Congressional approach to these backdoor earmarks. As we have mentioned in previous writings, the Army receives by far the greatest number of these highly specific additions to their RDT&E accounts in both the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) and House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Defense (HAC/D) bills. Suspiciously so. The SASC, on the other hand, has by far the fewest overall Congressionally directed “program increases” and targets the Defense-wide accounts for the highest number of additions.

The total number of RDT&E programs added to the Pentagon accounts by the SASC in the FY23 NDAA was 148. Compare this to 436 similar additions by the House authorizers and 411 by the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Defense (HAC/D). All three of those committees are dwarfed by the number of research and development programs added by the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Defense (SAC/D) in this appropriations cycle which is a whopping 580!

By comparison, Senate authorizers look like fiscal conservatives. And the trend of slamming the largest number of added programs in the Army accounts is reversed by the SASC. The Army is on the receiving end of 29 Congressionally-directed “program increases.” Budget Line #44 “Next Generation Combat Vehicle Advanced Technology,” had the greatest number of backdoor earmarks with three separate program increases. Budget Line #140 “Tactical Intel Targeting Access Node (TITAN) EMD” had the highest total increase due to backdoor earmarks: $80.9 million. And Budget Line #210 had the largest single program increase with $60 million for “Next Gen Stinger Missile Replacement.”

The catch-all “Defense-wide” accounts covering the budgets of the combatant commanders, Special Forces, the Commissary Service, you name it, understandably received the highest number of backdoor earmarks with 44 Congressionally-directed “program increases”. Budget Line #54, “Defense-wide Manufacturing Science and Technology Program,” had the greatest number of backdoor earmarks with four separate program increases. Budget Line #99, “Hypersonic Defense” had the highest total increase due to backdoor earmarks: $292.5 million. And Budget Line #99, “Hypersonic Defense” also had the single largest program increase, with the entire $292.5 million earmarked for “Glide phase defense weapon systems”.

In the SASC version of the NDAA, the Air Force was the single military service with the highest number of Congressionally-directed “program increases,” having 38 programs added to their research and development lines. Budget Line #66 “Cyber Operations Technology Support” and Line #109 “Major T&E Investment” tied for the greatest number of backdoor earmarks with four separate program increases each. Budget Line #182 “Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)” had the highest total increase due to backdoor earmarks: $301 million. And Budget Line #182 also had the single largest program increase, the same $301 million for “E-7 acceleration”.

Senate authorizers bestowed just slightly less “love” on Navy RDT&E accounts with 32 Congressionally-directed “program increases.” Line #5 “Force Protection Applied Research” and Line #140 “Mine Development” tied for the greatest number of backdoor earmarks with four separate program increases each. Budget Line #136 “New Design SSN” had the highest total increase due to backdoor earmarks: $188.9 million. Budget Line #136, “New Design SSN” also had the largest single program increase, with that entire $188.9 million dedicated to “Advanced Undersea Capability Development.”

The budgetarily-small-but-growing Space Force brings up the rear with 5 Congressionally-directed “program increases.” The Guardians and Congress certainly like to obscure their actions in this regard by larding up classified programs with that money. Very frustrating for a budget watchdog like me, but that’s the way it goes sometimes.

In the SASC version of the NDAA Budget Line #9999999999 “Classified Programs” had the greatest number of backdoor earmarks with two separate program increases. The same budget line also had the highest total increase due to backdoor earmarks: $634.5 million. Finally, the same budget line had the single largest program increase, $$326.5 million for, you guessed it, “Classified Program.”

All this digging through the budget tables and searching out the specifics of what Congress is adding to the Pentagon budget request does reveal patterns. So far, only the Senate Armed Services Committee has shown any restraint in this cycle, and the SASC pattern for adding programs diverges significantly from the other Congressional committees involved.

But this research proves that earmarking, just by another method, is still practiced on Capitol Hill. And Taxpayers for Common Sense keeps uncovering it.