[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 64 (Wednesday, May 11, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2852-S2853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I was happy to see the No. 2 Democrat 
in the House yesterday take a stand against the President's proposed 
Executive order, a proposal disguised as increased ``transparency,'' 
which would allow the administration to review a company's political 
donations before deciding whether to award a Federal contract. That is 
right; the administration would be able to review a company's political 
donations before deciding whether to give them a Federal contract.
  Here is how he put it: This is the No. 2 Democrat in the House:

       [The] White House plan to require federal contractors to 
     disclose political contributions could politicize the bidding 
     process and undermine its integrity.

  Similar efforts have already been rejected by the Supreme Court, the 
Federal Election Commission, and the Congress during the last session 
of the Congress. Now there is bipartisan opposition to the 
administration's Executive order.
  The White House is spinning this as ``reform,'' claiming the American 
people deserve to know how taxpayer money is being used by contractors. 
However, the proposed Executive order would exclude Democratic allies, 
including Federal employee labor unions, environmental groups, and, of 
course, Planned Parenthood.
  As I have said, no White House--no White House--should be able to 
review a contractor's political party affiliation before deciding if 
they are worthy--worthy--of a government contract. No one should have 
to worry about whether their political support will determine their 
ability to get or to keep a Federal contract or to keep a job.
  The issuing of contracts by the Federal Government should be based on 
the contractor's merits, bids, and capabilities. Under no condition--no 
condition--should political contributions play a role in that decision. 
However, the White House draft Executive order makes it crystal clear 
that if a contractor wants to do business with the government--if they 
want to do business with the government--they cannot contribute to the 
Republicans.
  As Senator Collins recently pointed out, this Executive order would 
basically repeal the Hatch Act and inject politics back into the 
procurement process. This is simply unacceptable.
  Democracy is compromised when individuals and small businesses fear 
reprisal or expect favor from the Federal Government as a result of 
their political associations. So the recent press reports about this 
unprecedented Executive order raise troubling concerns about an effort 
to silence or intimidate political adversaries' speech through the 
government contracting system.
  The White House still has an opportunity to not go forward with this 
order, and you can rest assured we will be watching very closely 
because the proposed effort would represent an outrageous--a truly 
outrageous--and antidemocratic abuse of executive branch authority.
  It is my sincere hope that the recent reports of the draft Executive 
order were simply the work of a partisan within the administration and 
not the position taken by the President himself. He should state his 
position.
  Mr. President, we are waiting for your response.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S2853]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.

                          ____________________