[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Support the Anti-Scofflaw Regulation
Does anyone really believe that a decision to block corporations like
Monsanto or General Electric from government contracts will be made by
some GS-13 procurement officer in EPA? That decision would not even be
made by the EPA Administrator, it would be made in the White House and
probably in the Oval Office. And it would be made to suit the needs of
the occupant of that office. No, my friend, you would be handing a
tremendous weapon to an amoral person.
Let me give you a different script, one closer to real experience.
Activists campaign on a certain company to gather evidence of its
repeated and serious violation of environmental or other laws, and
demand contracting officers refuse to contract with the company. The
President's men use this demand as leverage to extract contributions and
political support from the company, and if they get it they sign a
consent agreement where the company promises to sin no more. End of
story.
Bill Sanjour
http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour
Robert Weissman wrote:
>
> I disagree with Bill on this one, though I sympathize with his
> perspective.
>
> It is of course true that the Clinton administration has been horribly
> soft on polluters and other corporate miscreants. It is also true that the
> anti-scofflaw regulation gives discretionary power -- far more than
> desirable -- to contracting officers to decide whether a company's record
> of violating the law is sufficient that it should not be eligible for a
> government contract.
>
> But even with those caveats, the regulation is likely to have several very
> beneficial effects:
>
> 1. Although they won't enforce it as often or as aggressively as we'd
> like, procurement officers will occasionally invoke the regulation to
> block a company from receiving a government contract. In most cases, this
> will be a much more severe penalty than what is available under existing
> law.
>
> 2. The prospect of such action will exercise a deterrent effect on
> corporate wrongdoing -- not revolutionary, by any means, but also greater
> than zero.
>
> 3. Even with inadequate enforcement, it will be possible for activists
> campaigning on a certain company to gather evidence of its repeated and
> serious violation of environmental or other laws, and to demand
> contracting officers refuse to contract with the company. This will be a
> valuable campaigning tool.
>
> On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, william sanjour wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 10:30:17 -0400
> > From: william sanjour <wsanjour@lincs.net>
> > To: rob@essential.org
> > Cc: Multiple recipients of list DIOXIN-L <dioxin-l@essential.org>
> > Subject: Re: Support the Anti-Scofflaw Regulation
> >
> > I am very skeptical about this proposed anti-scofflaw regulation. First
> > because it would be administered by the same administration that awards
> > contracts to the scofflaws in the first place; the same administration
> > that fails to take enforcement actions against known environmental
> > lawbreakers; and the same administration that breaks the law itself a
> > dozen times a day. Secondly it gives discretionary authority to the
> > administration to choose which companies get punished and which do not.
> > Knowing how corrupt and money grubbing the White house can be, this
> > proposed law gives the President a powerful tool to blackmail scofflaws
> > into making big contributions to avoid losing government contracts.
> >
> > Bill Sanjour
> > http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Weissman wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Friend:
> > >
> > > This message is to alert you to an important federal environmental
> > > proposal, the Anti-Scofflaw regulation, that would help crack down on
> > > law-breaking corporations, and to solicit your help in making sure it is
> > > adopted.
> > >
> > > The Clinton administration proposed the Anti-Scofflaw regulation in July.
> > > The proposal would prevent the federal government from entering into
> > > contracts with companies that are chronic violators of environmental laws,
> > > as well as consumer, labor, tax, antitrust and employment laws.
> > >
> > > The federal government is now accepting comments on the proposed
> > > regulation. Business groups are weighing in heavily against it; and so if
> > > the proposal is to be enacted, it is vital that environmentalists and
> > > others submit comments in support of the regulation.
> > >
> > > It is easy to submit comments -- even a comment that says nothing more
> > > than, "I support the principle that the federal government should not
> > > contract with companies that seriously transgress environmental laws or
> > > other consumer or worker protection statutes" is valuable, and comments
> > > can be submitted by e-mail (as well as by regular mail). Comments must be
> > > submitted by November 8, 1999.
> > >
> > > For background on the proposed regulation, and tips on what to say in
> > > comments, see the Essential Action web page,
> > > http://www.essentialaction.org/anti-scofflaw. You can e-mail comments
> > > directly to the agency from this page.
> > >
> > > Lower in this message is an excerpt from the Essential Action web page, on
> > > frequently asked questions. Also on the web page, but not included in this
> > > message, are tips on submitting comments, and links to the proposed rule,
> > > to GAO studies showing the high number of corporate scofflaws who are
> > > government contractors, and to the Big Business page in opposition to the
> > > rule.
> > >
> > > Please take a couple minutes to submit a comment. Our combined efforts can
> > > win a meaningful constraint on corporate wrongdoers.
> > >
> > > Robert Weissman,
> > > Essential Action
> > >
> > > P.S. Please adapt this message and send it to friends, colleagues and
> > > relevant listserves, or simply forward it directly. Thanks.
> > >
> > > FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
> > > ABOUT THE ANTI-SCOFFLAW REGULATION
> > >
> > > What is the Anti-Scofflaw regulation?
> > >
> > > It is a Clinton administration proposal to prevent the federal government
> > > from entering into contracts with companies that are chronic violators of
> > > labor, environmental, tax, antitrust or employment laws.
> > >
> > > What would the regulation do exactly?
> > >
> > > The Clinton Administration's "responsible contractor" reforms would
> > > clarify existing rules that instruct the federal government only to
> > > contract with "responsible contractors." "Responsible contractors" are
> > > defined as those who can demonstrate the technical and financial
> > > capability and performance record to do a job, and who also evidence the
> > > business integrity and ethics to merit a government contract.
> > >
> > > The proposed regulation states that "examples of an unsatisfactory record
> > > [of integrity and business ethics] may include persuasive evidence of the
> > > prospective contractor's lack of compliance with tax laws, or substantial
> > > noncompliance with labor law, employment laws, environmental laws,
> > > antitrust laws or consumer protection laws."
> > >
> > > The administration's proposal also would specify that a contractor's
> > > "capability" to perform a contract includes "the necessary workplace
> > > practices addressing matters such as training, worker retention, and legal
> > > compliance to assure a skilled, stable and productive workforce."
> > >
> > > If the regulation is adopted, then federal government procurement officers
> > > will consider a potential contractors' record of respecting the law, and
> > > will not allow the government to enter into contracts with chronic
> > > lawbreakers.
> > >
> > > Why does the regulation matter?
> > >
> > > The Anti-Scofflaw regulation would help establish the sound principle that
> > > the federal government should not do business with repeat or serious
> > > corporate lawbreakers.
> > >
> > > And, it would give business an extra incentive to comply with the law,
> > > since there would be a real price to pay for repeatedly or seriously
> > > transgressing worker rights, health, safety, environmental, tax or
> > > antitrust laws. The federal government spends approximately $200 billion a
> > > year on procurement, buying goods and services from firms that employ
> > > approximately 20 percent of the U.S. workforce. Government contracts make
> > > up a significant revenue stream for many firms, including many of the
> > > largest companies in the country.
> > >
> > > Does the federal government currently contract with corporate lawbreakers?
> > >
> > > Yes. Consider the issues of worker rights and worker safety. A 1995 study
> > > by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the congressional research agency,
> > > found that 80 federal contractors, receiving more than $23 billion in
> > > federal government business in fiscal year 1993, had violated the National
> > > Labor Relations Act. Six contractors -- McDonnell Douglas, Westinghouse,
> > > Raytheon, United Technologies, AT&T and Fluor -- received almost 90
> > > percent of the $23 billion.
> > >
> > > A 1996 GAO study found that 261 federal contractors, receiving more than
> > > $38 billion in federal government business in fiscal year 1994, received
> > > penalties of at least $15,000 for violating Occupational Safety and
> > > Health Act regulations. The biggest of these contractors included General
> > > Electric, Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, United Technologies, General
> > > Motors, Boeing and Textron.
> > >
> > > Is anyone opposing the regulation?
> > >
> > > The U.S. Chamber of Commerce along with an alphabet-soup full of business
> > > trade associations have organized the National Alliance Against
> > > Blacklisting to block the proposal. Big Business is revving up arguments
> > > about how the regulations would bestow on procurement officers the power
> > > to act arbitrarily, and how corporations could be unfairly penalized for
> > > failing to comply with confusing and technical federal rules.
> > >
> > > Do the Big Business arguments have merit?
> > >
> > > No. The Anti-Scofflaw regulation would only apply to companies with a
> > > record of "substantial noncompliance" with labor, employment,
> > > environmental, antitrust or consumer protection laws. The supplementary
> > > information in the regulation proposal explains that procurement officials
> > > would generally base their "adverse responsibility determinations" on
> > > final adjudication by a court or formal administrative body. (In some
> > > circumstances, the official may look to persuasive evidence of substantial
> > > noncompliance with the law, other than final adjudications.) The real
> > > danger is not that companies will unfairly be found irresponsible, but
> > > that many irresponsible companies may continue to receive government
> > > contracts.
> > >
> > > Does the Anti-Scofflaw regulation contain provisions besides the
> > > responsible contractor criteria?
> > >
> > > Yes. The regulation would also end the practice by which the federal
> > > government reimburses contractors for conducting anti-union campaigns. And
> > > it would end the practice by which the federal government reimburses
> > > contractors for legal defense costs in cases where a contractor has
> > > violated the law.
> > >
> > > What can I do to support the Anti-Scofflaw regulation?
> > >
> > > The General Services Administration is now accepting written comments on
> > > the Anti-Scofflaw regulation. Citizen comments will encourage the Clinton
> > > administration to resist pressure from Big Business, and to adopt the
> > > proposal.
> > >
> > > Written comments should be sent by regular mail to:
> > >
> > > General Services Administration
> > > FAR Secretariat (MVR)
> > > 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035 ATTN: Laurie Duarte
> > > Washington, D.C. 20045
> > >
> > > Or, you can send comments by e-mail to farcase.99-010@gsa.gov.
> > >
> > > Be sure to mention in all written comments that you are commenting in
> > > reference to FAR case 99-010.
> > >
> > > Our Anti-Scofflaw main page enables you to E-mail comments directly to the
> > > agency. We also have suggestions for what to include in your comments.
> > >
> > > It is also important that citizens contact their Members of Congress and
> > > express their support for the Anti-Scofflaw regulation. Big Business is
> > > likely to go to Congress in an effort to block the proposal's
> > > implementation.
> > >
> > > What if I have more questions?
> > >
> > > Contact Essential Action's co-director, Robert Weissman, at
> > > rob@essential.org.
> >
>
> Robert Weissman
> Essential Information | Internet: rob@essential.org