That is about the worst law I have ever seen, but typical of those issued by Clinton in his 'final days'. Ever heard the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'?
Go Bush!
U.S. Drops Rule On Contractors
Lawbreakers Won't Be Barred
By Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 28, 2001; Page E03
The Bush administration repealed a rule this week that would have allowed government agencies to refuse federal contracts to companies that do not comply with labor, environmental and consumer-protection laws.
The provision, which opponents call "blacklisting" because it would eliminate many firms from competition for government projects, was issued in the final days of the Clinton administration. Its implementation had been on hold since January.
Unions long have pushed for tighter limits on companies that receive government contracts, so that violators of labor and other laws do not receive federal money. Vice President Al Gore promised as much to the AFL-CIO in 1997.
In January, the rule was issued, instructing federal contracting officers to consider any credible evidence of wrongdoing by prospective government contractors before giving them business. Opponents said the regulation was too broad and difficult to comply with. They said it would prohibit companies with even minor legal disputes from doing business with the government and would put procurement officials in the position of judging whether companies had violated the law.
"This really would have injected into the government procurement process a whole new test by which employers had to be measured before being considered for a government contract," said Randel Johnson, a vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which led the lobbying effort against the provision.
Johnson said procurement officers could have considered even unproven charges, innocent technical violations and alleged violations of foreign laws as grounds for refusing government contracts.
"They threw a net across the ocean to catch a few fish," Johnson said.
Some federal agencies also indicated that compliance would be complicated and burdensome.
Labor groups argue that the law would have kept the government from supporting lawbreakers.
"If somebody is engaged in repeated pervasive violations of the law, that company should not be receiving a government contract," said Laurence E. Gold, associate general counsel of the AFL-CIO.
"There is nothing extreme about this. The regulation was developed over years with substantial input from contractors and the general public," Gold said. "It was very carefully worded." He said he suspects the administration timed the decision between Christmas and New Year's Day to deflect attention away from the action.
The House of Representatives voted this summer not to pay for enforcing the rule, but the Senate did not follow suit.
washingtonpost.com |
