Two watchdog organizations are urging House and Senate appropriators to remove earmark requests in the 2008 defense-spending bill benefiting BAE Systems and ProLogic, two companies that are allegedly under federal investigation.
Taxpayers for Common Sense and the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative-leaning nonprofit, sent a letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Appropriations committees urging them to suspend more than $59 million in earmarks for the two companies.
The groups said the earmarks are “particularly troubling” considering the pending federal investigations.
The Department of Justice is investigating BAE Systems for alleged bribery in dealings with Saudi Arabia. According to news reports, BAE set up a slush fund with hundreds of millions of dollars in a Washington, D.C. bank to bribe Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan in order to win weapons contracts.
Meanwhile, ProLogic, a company close to Appropriations Defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.), is under federal investigation for allegedly diverting public funds to develop commercial software, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company denies any wrongdoing.
The watchdog organizations also expressed concern that the family of ProLogic’s CEO owns some of the facilities that the company rents, at a higher-than-market rate. That “adds to the concerns of waste, fraud and abuse in its federal contracts,” the letter said.
“Public confidence in Congress continues to wane, and wasteful spending and corruption continue to be primary causes of public concern,” the two watchdogs wrote. “Suspending these earmarks in the conference process would be an important step in restoring public faith in Congress.”
“BAE Systems has, and is proud of, our very strong records of ethics, compliance and performance in service to America’s armed forces,” said BAE Systems spokesman Greg Caires. Because of the ongoing investigation, the company declined any further comment.
Phone calls to ProLogic were not returned by press time.
BAE is a much larger company than ProLogic, a software developer classified as a small business.
But the two companies are similar in that both have donated thousands of dollars to Appropriations committee members in both chambers, and operate a number of facilities in key congressional districts — a common practice among defense companies seeking to build strong relationships in Congress.
Over the past two years, BAE Systems North America, BAE Systems’ U.S. subsidiary, has acquired both United Defense and Armor Holdings.
The buying spree has turned Britain-based BAE Systems into the third-largest defense company in the world, and the sixth biggest in the United States.
BAE Systems now makes the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, a staple in Iraq, and has a large share in the production of the new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, or MRAPs.
Like most large defense companies, such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing, BAE has facilities in congressional districts across the country.
BAE’s political action committee, or PAC, doled out close to $706,000 to lawmakers and their affiliated PACs in the 2006 election cycle, making the company one of the top five congressional givers among defense companies.
In 2006, for example, BAE donated $10,000 to House Appropriations defense subcommittee Chairman Murtha; $10,000 to Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the panel’s ranking member; $4,500 to Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the full committee; and $10,000 to his counterpart, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), according to data for the Center for Responsive Politics.
Meanwhile, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, received $1,000 from BAE, while ranking member Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) received $8,000.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), ranking member of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, received $9,000, while Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), also a defense appropriator, received $2,500.
BAE also has contributed to members from New Hampshire, Texas, Minnesota, New York and Ohio.
According to data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense, seven earmarks worth $21 million are targeted at BAE programs in the House defense-spending bill in the Senate.
McConnell’s requests for BAE in the Senate defense appropriations bill are also raising criticism from the two watchdog groups. McConnell has requested $25 million for projects that would benefit BAE Systems, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
ProLogic Inc. has received six earmarks worth $13 million in the House bill, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. The watchdog was not able to find similar projects in the Senate bill because the Senate has not disclosed the beneficiaries of earmarks.
The members who requested the earmarks for ProLogic have also received campaign contributions from the company in the past five years.
The company also has offices in the congressional districts of top appropriators such as Reps. Obey, Murtha, Jim Moran (D-Va.), Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va) and Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.).
Moran requested $2 million for a Global Combat System program. Murtha requested $3 million for a North American Aerospace Defense Command program.
Visclosky, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) all also requested money for ProLogic programs.
The software company usually favors Democrats in its donations, but it has contributed $16,500 to Kingston and his PAC since 2002.
Obey has received at least $20,000 from the company, while Murtha has received $15,000. Mollohan has received about $10,000, Moran $9,000 and Visclosky $15,500. Meanwhile, Byrd received $2,500 and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a defense authorizer, $7,000. ProLogic has donated $162,500 to lawmakers since 2002.
If the earmarks benefiting BAE Systems and ProLogic are not removed, the two watchdog groups wrote that “the committee will be sending the message that the way to success in getting taxpayers’ money is to put your facilities in key congressional districts, give campaign donations to those congressmen, and hope the Congress rewards you despite an ongoing federal investigation regarding possible defrauding of the government and accusations of bribery.” |
