House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., threatened during a hearing in early March to “stop the money” for the contract. Rep. Norman Dicks, a Democrat from Washington whose district would see an influx of jobs if Boeing won the contract, argued that “we’re going to start this thing over.” Others have focused their resistance on EADS, the French-based parent company of Airbus. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., said “we should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers,” and Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California, argued that the decision would hurt “national security interests…” If GAO upholds the decision, Congress has the power to cancel funding for the project or direct program funds to Boeing through an earmark. But such a move, contracting experts said, would be virtually unprecedented and could spark a wave of unintended consequences.
Congress has complained that the Defense Department ‘changed the rules’ for the acquisition midstream, but now Members of Congress are talking about doing the same. While bureaucrats are required by law to disregard job impacts when making acquisition decisions, legislators are arguing to overturn the award on the ground that that consideration should have been paramount. If Congress decides to wade into this after it’s already been decided, it will delay delivery of critical hardware, add uncertainty to the acquisition process, and give European governments an excuse to shut their markets to American companies. And it will give John McCain the chance to take a more prominent stand against the ultimate earmark–a stand which is unlikely to cost him electoral votes in Washington, Illinois, or even in deep-red Kansas.
