[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 85 (Friday, June 14, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E865]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       RE: H. AMDT. 89 TO H.R. 2216 AND H. AMDT. 124 TO H.R. 2217

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ALAN GRAYSON

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 13, 2013

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I introduced the amendments in the 
Veterans-Military Construction and Homeland Security appropriations 
bills that forbid contracting with offerors who have been indicted for, 
or convicted of, fraud or similar egregious acts, all of which 
establish a categorical, unequivocal and definitive lack of present 
responsibility. The intent of Congress with regard to these provisions, 
and other such provisions, is as follows: These provisions are to be 
construed broadly, not only for the sake of ensuring confidence in 
government contracting, but also to protect the public fisc. No 
exceptions of any kind are intended.
  The terms ``embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or 
destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, violating 
Federal criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property'' and other 
such terms in these provisions are intended to be construed as broadly 
as possible. They extend to any offense that refers or relates to such 
offenses, whether Federal, State, county, municipal or tribal.
  The term ``offeror'' includes all affiliates of any kind, including 
but not limited to parent companies, sister companies, subsidiaries and 
commonly controlled entities. The term is to be construed broadly.
  To the extent feasible, this prohibition extends to the exercise of 
contract options in contracts that have already been awarded, and to 
contract modifications that increase or may increase contract price or 
cost.
  It is the sense of Congress that these provisions, specifically 
including the prohibition on contract awards to indicted contractors, 
comport with due process and all other constitutional standards. Among 
other reasons, this is because of the due process protections preceding 
an indictment, the opportunity to challenge an indictment immediately 
in court, and both constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy 
trial. No contractor should have standing to challenge this prohibition 
based on an indictment without first exhausting legal challenges to the 
indictment. An indicted contractor that fails to exploit any provision 
providing for a speedy trial waives the right to challenge this 
prohibition.
  If an offeror should make the certification in question but fails to 
do so, or an offeror falsely certifies, then any resulting contract has 
been procured by fraud, and no future payments thereunder are 
permitted, and all past payments constitute false claims, regardless of 
whether any work has been done or deliverables accepted. A false 
certification shall be actionable under Section 1001 of the U.S. 
Criminal Code, and other applicable law, and any resulting indictment 
or conviction shall qualify for the prohibition within these 
provisions. Any request for payment under a resulting contract shall 
qualify as both a criminal false claim and a civil false claim.

                          ____________________