Providing for Congressional Disapproval of A Rule Submitted By the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency--Veto--

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to the veto message on S.J. Res. 22.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. on Thursday, January 21; further, that if cloture is not invoked, the veto message be indefinitely postponed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, news outlets reported something today that should worry all of us. Apparently, President Obama is again--one more time--considering imposing his enemies list regulation by Executive order, just weeks after Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass, and the President signed into law, legislation prohibiting him from doing that very thing.

The enemies list regulation would inject partisan politics into the government contracting process by allowing an organization's political leaning and donations to be considered. Here is the practical effect: Administrations of either party could draw friends lists and enemies lists and then award contracts based upon whether an organization backed the right horse in the last election.

That is the kind of thing you would expect in some banana republic but not in the United States of America. So why would the President even attempt to impose such a bad idea?

Let me remind my colleagues of something the President's own Chief of Staff recently said. He implied that the central question President Obama will now ask himself before imposing a policy is--listen to this--``Why not?''

``Why not?'' Think about that--not whether it is good for the country, not whether it is constitutional, just ``why not.''

If future Republican Presidents lived by this ``why not'' standard, Democrats would be truly outraged. If future Republican Presidents ignored prohibitions passed by Democratic-controlled Congresses, Democrats would be outraged. When the legislature passes a prohibition and the President signs that prohibition into law, it is the law.

I hope every one of my colleagues, even those who support the idea of an enemies list, will join me in that sentiment at least. If it is the law, it is the law. We are always mindful that the precedents set today could be wielded by a different President tomorrow.

The intent of the prohibition Congress passed here is absolutely clear, regardless of creative arguments the administration might construct to justify skirting the law.

If President Obama's standard these days is ``why not,'' then here are a few reasons why not. Here is the first: He can't do it. That should really be the end of the discussion.

For the sake of argument, here is another reason: It is a terrible policy. Just listen to what members of the President's own party have said about it. One of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate said:

Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the award of contract must be based on the evaluation of quality, price, past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence and other considerations related to the merits of an offer. The requirement that businesses disclose political expenditures as part of the offer process creates the appearance that this type of information could become a factor in the award of Federal contracts.

She explained:

Requiring businesses to disclose their political activity when making an offer risks injecting politics into the contracting process.

The second-ranking Democratic in the House--not some back-bencher-- said:

The issue of contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractor's application and bid and capabilities. . . . There are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts.

He said he was ``not in agreement with the administration'' on this issue.

So, look, no one should have to worry about whether supporting a certain political party or a candidate will determine their ability to get a Federal contract or keep their job. I hope what we read in the papers is not accurate.

The President's enemies list proposal fails even the ``why not'' test on multiple levels:

No. 1, he can't.

No. 2, it is bad policy, as Democrats have reminded us.

If you need another reason, here is a third: No. 3, Congress has rejected these types of policies already.

There are plenty of reasons why the President should not attempt to impose this regulation, and the President should heed them.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source