Fact-Checking "Merci McCain"
It's possible that McCain's language was incorporated into the conference bill in a different section. But it seems highly unlikely, given that he tried again in 2004. I have requested clarification from the Senator's DC staff.
Update 2: McCain's amendment does not appear in the engrossed bill signed by President Bush (pdf -1.8MB)
Funny, John McCain co-sponsored or sponsored (in lay terms, "wrote") only one bill that become law in 2004: S.J.RES.41. This joint resolution commemorated the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian. As you can see for yourself, it had nothing to do with Pentagon sourcing. Maybe CAF is talking about an appropriations bill amendment?
Moreover, the contract in question was awarded to Northrop Grumman, a US company based in Los Angeles. Its partner is Airbus, a subsidiary of EADS, a Dutch company.
This is not unlike the partnership arrangement used by the Carlyle Group when it tried to purchase the US assets of Dubai World, after that port deal blew up in 2006. Was CAF worried about foreign ownership/investment of infrastructure then? No.
Before we go nuts about an Arab company taking over some of our ports—or for that matter a Chinese company taking over one of our oil companies or, say, a Russian company taking over an American nuclear power plant, or a Turkish company taking over an American chemical plant, or a Bulgarian company taking over a military supplier—we’ve got to know what it means for them to “take over” something of ours.
In the global economy, who’s them? Who’s us? And what’s a “takeover?” There’s a world of difference between ownership, management, day-to-day operations and control.
So, what does The Campaign for America's Future mean with its accusation? Did McCain author or co-author an amendment to an appropriations bill in 2004?
Defense Appropriations Amendment
When I asked that question (pdf), CAF replied in an email that they were referencing an amendment to an amendment (No. 3461) that Sen. McCain and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) offered in 2004 during the defense appropriations debate. Along with Democrats Feingold and Dayton (and maybe others), McCain and Warner were trying to provide the Secretary of Defense with flexibility in implementing the Barry Amendment, a "buy American" artifact of the 1941 Fifth Supplemental DOD Appropriations Act. (pdf)
What CAF doesn't tell you is that the McCain/Warner amendment didn't make it into the final conference report, the bill signed into law by President Bush. Thus, McCain did not author any "law." (I'd argue that even if his amendment had passed, he would not have authored "the law" -- the FY2005 defense authorization bill. Instead, he would have authored "an amendment" to the law. Precise, but not as good a sound-bite.) From the Congressional Research Service: (pdf)
The Senate version of H.R. 4200 contained a provision that would have provided the Secretary of Defense the authority to waive the application of statutory domestic source requirements and domestic content requirements for those countries who have signed a Declaration of Principles on defense trade with the United States. [The McCain Amendment] The House version of the bill contained no such provision; the Senate receded.
Compare the versions for yourself. Check out the House bill as engrossed and sent to the Senate; there is no section 842 or 843. Then look at the McCain/Warner amendment (pdf), which would have amended Sections 842 and 843 (compared with the Dayton/Feingold amendment, which would have simply removed Sections 842 and 843 - pdf). Then look at the final version of the bill (pdf); there is no section 843 and section 842 looks nothing like the McCain Amendment.
However, according to the CRS, the bill does allow the Secretary of Defense "to waive limitations on the procurement of defense items from foreign sources, under certain conditions."
What McCain did do in 2004 was detail a "damming commentary about the way the Pentagon in general and the Air Force in particular conducts its business."
This Pentagon procurement scandal is something that CAF and others seemingly choose to ignore.
A History Of The Air Force Contract
In 2002, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) introduced an amendment to the defense appropriations bill which would have allowed Boeing to lease fuel tankers to the Air Force. Lease not sell. Not only would this have been precedent-setting, the Air Force had not requested the rider. McCain, a long-time critic of similar earmarks, did battle (unsuccessfully) with Stevens.
Back then, Common Dreams dubbed the deal a boondoggle and thought Sen.McCain was a white knight:
[T]hese are planes even the Air Force doesn't want, or least not enough to include in a list of its top 60 priorities. The request for the planes did not appear in the president's budget, or in the bill considered by the relevant Congressional appropriations subcommittees. As the full Senate appropriations committee was considering the Defense appropriations bill, the lease provision was inserted at the last minute at the behest of Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the ranking member of the Senate appropriations committee, and Patty Murray, D-Washington. (Murray apparently retains her loyalty to Boeing, even though the company has moved its headquarters out of Seattle.) ...
To his credit, Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, tried valiantly to block the deal, but with no success. The Boeing giveaway, he said, "I'm sure is the envy of corporate lobbyists from one end of K Street to the other." McCain estimated the cost of lease deal was, in total, more than five times the cost of outright purchase.
McCain subsequently investigated the lease deal as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. In the process, he unearthed a massive Pentagon procurement scandal that led to two Boeing officials being jailed and the ouster of Boeing CEO Phil Condit and Air Force Secretary James Roche.
Earlier this month, Democrats were charging that McCain's investigation -- which revealed Pentagon procurement fraud -- meant McCain was "partly to blame for the Air Force’s surprise decision last week to award a contract worth as much as $40 billion to a team that includes Northrop Grumman and EADS, the parent company of Airbus."
They argue that McCain should not have pushed for a new bidding process five years ago that opened Boeing up to competition from Airbus after a deal in which Boeing would have leased tankers to the Air Force fell apart amid corruption charges. The unraveling of that deal led to the competition won by the U.S.-European partnership last week.
So, what? McCain shouldn't have pushed this investigation? That corruption and revolving door mess was OK with them? Is that really what Democratic leadership (and CAF?) mean? Because if it is, they should be kissing goodbye any support from good government groups and individuals. Bah.
Countdown to Pennsylvania: 30 days
Countdown to Democratic Convention: 156 days
Countdown to Republican Convention: 159 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 226 days
Seed NewsvineOriginally posted at 03.08 Eastern on 23 March 2008. Updated at 20.18 and 20.58.
Comments
Hi Kathy,
Courageous of you to post this. As a European, a French citizen and a Dutch resident, I wanted to thank you. Mc Cain did the right thing then and for once, the DoD was right to allow this contract. More, it is particularly hypocritical for the Democrat leadership to cry about this contract, when the Netherlands, the UK, France and many other European countries don’t hesitate to buy American products, even when the labor consequences are negative for them, if the quality/price ratio is good. Ok. They don’t do it all the time, and these deals also involve local EU firms, but it is time the USA learn a bit the meaning of the word reciprocity…
Hi, Alphast — thanks. I didn’t think of it as “courage”– I was POed.
I’m a little surprised that it’s generated no comments (until now).
Well, this deal clearly involves US workers and firms — the primary contractor is a Boeing competitor based in Los Angeles.
I’m also a little annoyed at the (mock) outrage expressed about Airbus “subsidies” … let’s look in a mirror to see how we “subsidize” Boeing and all defense contractors.
I agree, though this is saying more about our incapacity as Europeans to build a common defense (and procurement) policy.
Kathy, What are YOU saying? Do you want France & China to have our military blueprints AND our military contracts?
*Truth: In May 2003, John McCain wrote an Amendment allowing our national defense to be outsourced to China & France. [Vote 191, 5/21/03] http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=81362&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
– As a result, in Oct 2003 China received the blueprints for and contract bid to make OUR military’s “smart bombs.” The US closed the plant in Indiana so that China could build OUR military’s smart bombs in China.
– Can we really trust China to have our national security blueprints on bombs? Can we really trust China to make our bombs for our military men/women to use on the enemy. We can’t even trust China to make lead-free toys and/or medicine that doesn’t kill Americans.
* Truth: As a result of McCain’s 2003 Amendment the military JUST awarded France a military national security contract — John McCain said, “I would not work to overturn the decision and saying that military decisions should not be about creating jobs.”
– Really, I thought the military was about creating U.S. jobs during war time. Did we outsource our bombs during WWII? No, we employed U.S. citizens to make our bombs & other military needs.
Kathy, many people think that if you “give away national security secrets you’ve committed Treason. Well, John McCain made Treason legal with the amendments he passed allowing the military to outsource our national security secrets -like how to make a smart bomb!
McCain has betrayed this country with his poorly judged national security amendments.
Hello, Cathy!
I just love how this coment starts off accusing me of nothing I’ve said … and how it ignores the fact that I discuss the AMENDMENT you point… and it to was not in the final BILL.
So how, pray, tell, did McCain orchestrate this?
That’s been my question all along — someone (and CFA did not, after being asked) show me where a McCain-authored AMENDMENT (cause he hasn’t written a BILL) was incorporated into a bill that was passed & signed.
But thanks for reminding me that I stopped trying to figure out what changed in Pentagon contracting circles.
Oh. And you _do_ know that Boeing succeeded in its appeal of the contract. Right?
Kathy, Seems as though YOU left out facts in your fact-check here. Fact is you provided the WRONG year, YOU provided the WRONG Bill number and YOU provided the WRONG Amendment numbers. Do you fact check for Sean Hannity?
McCain’s Amendment that HE authored, and became law in November 2003, is Amdt. No. 783 to Amdt. No. 725. NOT the false 3461 Amdt No. YOU provided.
The Senate Bill was S. 1050 - Defense Department FY2004 Authorization Bill.
Note, the year WAS 2003 not the 2004 you discuss here.
The Section number IS 833 and President Bush signed it into law in Nov 2003.
I have no idea where you got the arbitrary Amendment numbers you printed.
McCain’s speech on the Senate Floor:
“Date: 05/21/2003
Location: Washington, DC
Speech AMENDMENT NO. 783 TO AMENDMENT NO. 725
The PRESIDING OFFICER. John McCain, The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment numbered 783 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 725.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Purpose: To propose the insertion of matter in lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken
In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken, insert the following:
SEC. 833. WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR DOMESTIC SOURCE OR CONTENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) AUTHORITY. Subchapter V of chapter 148 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
§ 2539c. Waiver of domestic source or content requirements
(a) AUTHORITY. Except as provided in subsection (f), the Secretary of Defense may waive the application of any domestic source requirement or domestic content requirement referred to in subsection (b) and thereby authorize the procurement of items that are grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, or manufactured:
(1) in a foreign country that has a Declaration of Principles with the United States;
(2) in a foreign country that has a Declaration of Principles with the United States substantially from components and materials grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, or manufactured in the United States or any foreign country that has a Declaration of Principles with the United States; or
(3) in the United States substantially from components and materials grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, or manufactured in the United States or any foreign country that has a Declaration of Principles with the United States.
McCain said, “In the name of protectionism, we would deprive the men and women in the military of the best equipment we can find for them to fight and risk their lives.”
[I guess McCain doesn’t think American manufacturing is superior to that of China, France, German, England?]
McCain said, “Is the priority to protect an American industry, and not allow our closest allies and friends to compete to sell their products, their defense equipment, to the United States of America?” — [I can see McCain does NOT want to ‘protect an American industry.’]
Kathy, are you on the side of truth or propaganda. Given you have provided phony Amendment numbers you gave I think you are on the side of propaganda. With fact-checking skills like yours, perhaps you should fact check for Sean Hannity?
Kathy,
You incorrectly discuss 2005 Defense Bill … when IN FACT it is in the FY2004 Defense Authorization Bill.
You incorrectly discuss section 833 of 2005 Defense … when IN FACT it is section 833 of 2004 Defense Authorization Bill.
You incorrectly discuss Amendment No. 3461 … when IN FACT it is Amendment No. 783.
FY2004 Defense Authorization Bill was signed into law in November 2003.
You will find Section 833 for FY2004 Defense Authorization Bill at this link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:6:./temp/~c108nthtg6::
To keepemhonest:
As I said in the article, I asked CAF for the documentation for their ad. They provided the bill number. I wrote them back and asked for more information; they did not answer.
And to Cathy as well:
I am currently at a conference. I will look at the final bills one more time. I you have links — as contrasted with assertions — that would be helpful. Thx.
Kathy, are you a fact checker or propaganda spreader. I mean, you are supposed to fact check yet you ask “Cathy” a poster to provide you with a link.
#1: Cathy DID provide a link at the end of the comment.
#2: Aren’t YOU PAID to fact check and research? Why are you relying on CAF to provide YOU with the document? Maybe they had a typo.
#3: If posters on your board can find the truth about McCain authoring an Amendment, that became law, that encourages our national defense to be outsorced to China & France and YOU CANNOT … then … just maybe you are in the wrong line of work & are paid too much.
Did it occur to you that CAF had a typo?
Maybe YOU should do YOUR OWN work & you won’t look so foolish when your facts are nothing more than GOP Propaganda?
I really had to laugh out loud at your comment posted to Keepemhonest & Cathy …