Spending Intelligence · Congressional Directed Spending
How Committee Seats Buy Base Budgets
Defense earmarks by installation and state — cross-referenced with Armed Services Committee membership. The correlation between congressional committee power and your base's budget is not a coincidence. It is the system working exactly as designed.
Sources: DoD Economic Impact Report · USAspending.gov · FY2024 NDAA Conference Report · Congress.gov committee rosters
FY2024 CDS (Directed Spending)
$800M+
Beyond President's MILCON request
SASC / HASC Members
52
Senators and representatives with direct markup power
Years Since Last BRAC
19
Last authorized: 2005
Submarine Builder Monopoly
1
Electric Boat — only US submarine manufacturer
Section 01
How Defense Earmarks Work
Pre-2011: Explicit Earmarks
Before 2011, appropriations bills contained explicit earmarks — provisions naming specific projects at specific locations, typically inserted by members of the relevant committees. These were disclosed in the bill text but not systematically tracked. In FY2010, defense earmarks totaled over $9B.
2011–2021: The “Ban” That Wasn't
Congress banned explicit earmarks in 2011. Directed spending did not disappear — it became less visible. Members used authorization language in the NDAA to direct specific programs to specific locations without formally calling them earmarks. The effect was largely the same; the paper trail was thinner.
2022–Present: Official Return as “CDS”
Congress formally restored earmarks in 2022 under the name “Congressionally Directed Spending.” CDS now carries disclosure requirements: members must certify no financial interest in their requests and must post requests publicly. DoD now publishes the CDS list annually. This transparency is genuine — the data is accessible on Congress.gov and in NDAA conference reports.
Two mechanisms drive directed spending: (1) Explicit CDS provisions in appropriations bills directing funds to specific installations, and (2) Authorization language in the NDAA directing specific programs to specific locations. MILCON — Military Construction — is the most visible: Congress funds specific building projects at specific bases by name.
Section 02
Senate Armed Services Committee — Power Map
118th Congress SASC membership, cross-referenced with major installations in each member's state. Source: Congress.gov committee roster.
As SASC Chair, Reed controls the committee agenda for all defense authorizations.
Mississippi receives ~$13B total defense spending for a population of 3M.
Virginia receives $65B+ total defense spending. The Hampton Roads region is structurally dependent on the Navy.
Hawaii receives the highest per-capita MILCON investment of any state in DoD.
Bath Iron Works is one of only two DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers shipyards in the country.
Electric Boat (Groton/Quonset Point) receives $2B–$4B annually for submarine construction.
Sits on SASC; Little Rock AFB is the primary C-130 training base.
Ellsworth is the primary basing site for the B-21 Raider. SASC membership correlates with continued basing investment.
Alaska receives ~$5.5B for a population of 730K — among the highest per-capita defense spending in the nation. INDOPACOM/Arctic positioning plus Sullivan's SASC seat.
Alabama receives ~$18B total defense spending. Mike Rogers (HASC Chair) also represents Alabama.
Offutt is the global command center for US strategic nuclear forces.
House Armed Services Committee — Key Members
The HASC Chair controls NDAA markup. Selected members with major installations in-district.
As HASC Chair, Rogers controls markup of the NDAA — the vehicle for most defense authorization language.
Northern Neck VA district — heavy Navy and Marine Corps presence.
Fort Jackson alone processes roughly 50% of all Army basic training.
AFMC manages $60B in annual acquisition programs. Turner has consistently fought BRAC proposals targeting WPAFB.
Puget Sound is the West Coast's primary Navy maintenance facility.
Section 03
Per-Capita Defense Spending by State
Committee members highlighted. States with heavy military presence but limited committee seniority included for comparison. Source: DoD Annual Economic Impact Report, USAspending.gov.
Note: Total defense spending includes contracts, payroll, and retirement. Per-capita figures are for analytical comparison only — states with large military populations will have higher per-capita defense spending regardless of committee influence. The relevant comparison is between states with similar military footprints but different committee representation.
Committee: Kaine (SASC), Warner (Senate Appropriations Defense)
Installations: NS Norfolk, Pentagon, Langley-Eustis, Ft. Belvoir, Quantico
Kaine (SASC), Warner (Senate Appropriations Defense)
NS Norfolk, Pentagon, Langley-Eustis, Ft. Belvoir, Quantico
Committee: Rogers (HASC Chair), Tuberville (SASC)
Installations: Redstone Arsenal, Fort Moore, Maxwell-Gunter AFB
Rogers (HASC Chair), Tuberville (SASC)
Redstone Arsenal, Fort Moore, Maxwell-Gunter AFB
Committee: Blumenthal (SASC)
Installations: NSB New London, Electric Boat (Groton/Quonset Point)
Blumenthal (SASC)
NSB New London, Electric Boat (Groton/Quonset Point)
Committee: Wicker (SASC Ranking)
Installations: Keesler AFB, Columbus AFB, Camp Shelby, NAS Meridian
Wicker (SASC Ranking)
Keesler AFB, Columbus AFB, Camp Shelby, NAS Meridian
Committee: Hirono (SASC)
Installations: Pearl Harbor-Hickam, JBPHH, Schofield Barracks, MCBH
Hirono (SASC)
Pearl Harbor-Hickam, JBPHH, Schofield Barracks, MCBH
Committee: Reed (SASC Chair)
Installations: Naval Station Newport, Quonset Point, Navy War College
Reed (SASC Chair)
Naval Station Newport, Quonset Point, Navy War College
Committee: Sullivan (SASC)
Installations: JBER, Eielson AFB, Clear Space Force Station
Sullivan (SASC)
JBER, Eielson AFB, Clear Space Force Station
Committee: Tillis, Budd (no senior SASC/HASC seats)
Installations: Fort Liberty, Camp Lejeune, Seymour Johnson AFB, Pope AAF
Tillis, Budd (no senior SASC/HASC seats)
Fort Liberty, Camp Lejeune, Seymour Johnson AFB, Pope AAF
Committee: Limited defense appropriations committee seniority historically
Installations: Fort Cavazos, Fort Bliss, JBSA (Lackland, Randolph, Sam Houston), Dyess, Sheppard, Goodfellow
Limited defense appropriations committee seniority historically
Fort Cavazos, Fort Bliss, JBSA (Lackland, Randolph, Sam Houston), Dyess, Sheppard, Goodfellow
Section 04 — Case Study
Connecticut & Rhode Island: The Submarine Case Study
The Clearest Example of Committee-Industrial Alignment
Electric Boat (EB), a division of General Dynamics, builds every attack submarine and every SSBN (ballistic missile submarine) for the US Navy. Its two facilities are in Groton, Connecticut and Quonset Point, Rhode Island. There is no other submarine construction yard in the United States.
Senator Richard Blumenthal represents Connecticut. He sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Jack Reed represents Rhode Island. He is the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The two senators who represent the only submarine-building states in the country chair and sit on the committee that authorizes submarine procurement.
The submarine industrial base receives approximately $3B–$4B annually for Virginia-class attack submarine construction, plus additional funding for Columbia-class SSBN production. This is not a criticism of the program — Virginia-class submarines are among the most capable in the world. It is an illustration of how committee power and industrial geography become structurally aligned over decades.
Because Electric Boat is the only supplier, it will receive submarine funding regardless of cost performance — the alternative is no submarines. This creates a structural dependency that the committee structure then reinforces. National security and committee interests are, in this case, genuinely aligned. That does not mean the dynamic should be invisible to service members.
Section 05
FY2024 Congressionally Directed Spending — How to Read It
The DoD CDS list is published annually as part of the NDAA conference report. It is public record. Here is how to interpret what you find there.
MILCON CDS Format
Each MILCON CDS entry names: (1) the project title, (2) the installation, (3) the state, (4) the dollar amount, and (5) the requesting member. Entries that exceed the President's budget request are labeled as "above request." In FY2024, Congress directed more than $800M in MILCON projects above the President's budget request. The majority were in states represented by SASC or HASC members.
O&M Directed Spending — Harder to Track
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) directed spending is embedded in authorization language rather than explicit line items. A member might direct DoD to fund a specific training program at a specific base without naming it as CDS. This is the harder-to-trace form of directed spending. POGO (Project on Government Oversight) has documented this pattern across multiple NDAA cycles.
How to Look It Up Yourself
The FY2024 NDAA conference report is available at congress.gov. Search for "Congressionally Directed Spending" — it is typically an exhibit or section of the conference report. USAspending.gov allows you to filter contracts and grants by state and congressional district. The DoD Comptroller publishes MILCON budget justification books that show exactly which construction projects are funded at which installations.
Section 06
What This Means For Service Members
Your base's budget is partly politics
Installations in states with senior Armed Services Committee members receive more directed MILCON investment. This means newer barracks, newer facilities, more construction activity — not because the mission requires it, but because the senator has the committee seat.
Quality of life is not evenly distributed
The disparity in installation quality between committee-represented states and others is real and documented. Service members at installations in states without committee power are not imagining the difference in facilities.
BRAC is frozen by committee interests
Base Realignment and Closure has not been authorized since 2005. DoD has consistently requested BRAC authority. Congress has consistently refused. Members of the Armed Services Committees have little incentive to authorize a process that could close bases in their states.
Committee power protects bases from cuts
The flip side of directed spending: committee seats also shield installations from budget cuts and consolidation. A senator on SASC can protect a base in their state even when DoD's own analysis recommends consolidation. This is not always bad — it creates stability. But it is not operational logic.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) in defense?
Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) is the official term for what were historically called earmarks — provisions in appropriations bills that direct funds to a specific project at a specific location. Explicit earmarks were banned from 2011 to 2021. Congress formally restored them in 2022 with new disclosure requirements. In defense, CDS appears most visibly in the Military Construction (MILCON) appropriations bill, where Congress funds specific building projects at specific installations by name.
How does committee membership affect defense spending at a base?
Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), House Armed Services Committee (HASC), and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittees have direct influence over which projects receive funding in the NDAA and appropriations bills. These members participate in markup sessions where spending priorities are set. Historically, states represented on these committees receive disproportionately high MILCON and O&M directed spending relative to their population and military footprint.
Is congressional directed defense spending legal?
Yes. Congressionally Directed Spending is fully legal and, since 2022, subject to disclosure requirements. Members must certify that they have no financial interest in the directed projects and must post their CDS requests publicly. The practice is openly documented in NDAA conference reports and appropriations bills. The issue is not legality — it is that most service members are unaware that their base's budget is partly a function of their state's congressional representation.
What is MILCON and why does it matter to service members?
MILCON (Military Construction) is the appropriation that funds the physical construction and renovation of buildings on military installations — barracks, maintenance facilities, hospitals, training ranges. Congress funds specific MILCON projects at specific bases by name in the annual MILCON appropriations bill. This means that a base in a state with powerful Armed Services Committee membership tends to get newer buildings, better barracks, and more modern facilities — not because it has a more critical mission, but because its senator has more committee seniority.
How does the submarine industrial base illustrate committee power?
Electric Boat (Groton, CT and Quonset Point, RI) builds every attack submarine and SSBN for the US Navy — there is no other submarine manufacturer. Senator Blumenthal (CT) and Senator Reed (RI) — the two senators representing the states where submarines are built — are both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Reed is the Chair. This creates a structural alignment: the senators who authorize submarine procurement also represent the only workforce capable of building them. The industrial base receives $3B–$4B annually and is effectively guaranteed funding regardless of cost performance, because there is no alternative supplier.
What happened to BRAC and how does committee power affect it?
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is the process by which DoD can close or realign military installations. BRAC has not been authorized since 2005. One significant reason: members of the Armed Services Committees have little incentive to authorize a process that could close bases in their own states, and significant leverage to block it. Multiple BRAC proposals have been killed by committee members protecting installations in their districts. The result is a base structure partly frozen by congressional geography rather than optimized for operational need.
Explore More
Sources and methodology: Defense spending by state from the DoD Annual Economic Impact Report (publicly available from the DoD Comptroller). Contract award data from USAspending.gov. Congressionally Directed Spending disclosures from the FY2024 NDAA conference report (congress.gov). MILCON budget justification books from the DoD Office of the Comptroller. Committee membership from the 118th Congress Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Services Committee rosters (congress.gov). BRAC history from the DoD Office of the Secretary of Defense. All figures are approximate — consult primary sources for official data. This analysis reflects publicly disclosed information and does not reflect non-public budget deliberations.