Fact-Checking "Merci McCain"

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.

Originally posted at 03.08 Eastern on 23 March 2008. Updated at 20.18 and 20.58.