State Ethics Law Protection Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3427) to amend title 23, United States Code, to protect States that have in effect laws or orders with respect to pay to play reform, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Illinois stated the case very clearly and thoughtfully, and the gentleman from New Jersey has further underscored the significance of this bill. This legislation makes clear that no State will be considered to have violated the Federal Highway Administration's competitive bidding requirements solely because the State chose to enact an anti-pay-to-play law. The bill would neither require a State to pass anti-pay-to-play nor prohibit a State from doing so. It would not weigh in on the merits of any existing State law. It simply removes what currently functions as a Federal prohibition on some States' efforts to prohibit pay-to-play. As the gentleman from New Jersey said, it is commonsense legislation, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3427, as amended, the ``State Ethics Law Protection Act of 2010'', introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

This bill aids State efforts to clean up their procurement processes by removing the threat of the loss of Federal-aid highway funds if a State chooses to enact ``anti-pay-to-play'' reforms.

Specifically, H.R. 3427 provides that a State may not be considered to have violated the

Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) competitive bidding requirements solely because of the enactment of a State or local law prohibiting ``pay-to-play''.

In an effort to improve State procurement processes, many States have enacted anti-pay-to-play laws that limit the amount of money that an individual or entity doing business with a State agency may contribute to a political party, campaign, or elected official.

Unfortunately, FHWA has interpreted State anti-pay-to-play laws as potentially conflicting with the competitive bidding requirements that apply to the use of Federal-aid highway funds under title 23 of the United States Code.

As a result of this statutory requirement, FHWA has twice threatened to withhold Federal highway funds from States that enacted anti-pay-to- play laws that applied to contracts on Federal-aid highway projects. The first instance occurred in 2004 in New Jersey. The second occurred last year in Illinois.

The competitive bidding requirements of title 23 are designed to ensure that the lowest qualified bidder is awarded Federal-aid highway contracts. They are not designed to prevent States from conducting procurement under the highest ethical standards. Unfortunately, in some instances, they have had just this effect.

H.R. 3427 addresses this situation by making it clear that no State will be considered to have violated FHWA competitive bidding requirements solely because the State chose to enact an anti-pay-to- play law.

This bill would neither require any State to pass an ``anti-pay-to- play'' law nor prohibit it from doing so. It would not weigh in on the merits of any existing State law. It would simply remove what currently functions as a Federal prohibition on some States' efforts to prohibit ``pay-to-play''.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3427.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are considering this legislation to clarify the language of Section 112 of title 23, United States Code to reaffirm the intent of Congress that Section 112 does not bar enforcement of State and local ordinances and contracting policies, in connection with Federal-aid highway projects, that disadvantage or disqualify classes of contractors. The Secretary properly enjoys discretion to approve contract requirements, consistent with the Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. Sec. 101, et seq.

Possible ambiguity in Section 112 has come to the Congress's attention in light of recent State and local efforts to combat corruption and favoritism in contracting. States, local jurisdictions, and the Securities and Exchange Commission have enacted ``pay-to-play'' restrictions that disqualify contractors who make campaign contributions to officials responsible for government contracts. Concerns have been raised that application of Section 112 may limit the discretion of FHWA to approve Federal-aid highway projects subject to State pay-to-play policies. Accordingly, the FHWA temporarily withheld federal highway funds from the States of New Jersey and Illinois.

The soundness of these concerns has been called into question by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, 508 F.3d 827 (6th Cir. 2007), and, in any event, these concerns misunderstand Congress's long-standing intent regarding the operation of the current laws governing Federal-aid highway projects. Section 17 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954, which is codified at Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, imposes a requirement on FHWA to ensure that government contractors are selected through a competitive bidding process. This competitive bidding requirement was ``designed to prohibit collusion or action in restraint of free competitive bidding in connection with the contract.'' S. Rep. 83-1093 (1954) at 14. The enactment of Section 112, however, was not intended to ``add to or otherwise affect the powers of the Secretary [of Transportation] . . . with respect to the selection of projects.'' Id. Subsequent amendments have not altered that purpose.

The language of this legislation simply makes clear that it has always been Congress's intent that the Secretary may concur in the award of a Federal-aid highway contract despite a State or local requirement, imposed by law or through contract, disqualifying contractors on the basis of the amount of money contributed to a political campaign. To be clear, the enactment of this legislation would not be construed to mean that existing law would have foreclosed the application of State pay-to-play restrictions, or similarly situated provisions, to highway projects supported by Federal funds.

This bill will dispel any misunderstandings about the application of State pay-to-play restrictions and similar policies to Federal-aid highway projects. It will have an immediate, positive effect for local and State governments determined to implement pay-to-play restrictions to combat corruption and favoritism.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3427.

Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, we must use every tool at our disposal to fight corruption. My home State of Illinois has made headlines time and again with charges of cronyism, corruption, and waste. Many of these charges involved pay-to-play politics, trading campaign contributions for government contracts.

In 2008, the Illinois General Assembly took a bipartisan stand by passing a bill to eliminate pay-to-play contracting. Amazingly, the Federal Government then told Illinois that it had to back down or risk losing highway funds. The Federal Highway Administration interpreted their competitive bidding requirements to mean that States couldn't weed out corrupt contractors. Clearly that wasn't the intent of this Chamber when it passed those requirements. That is why I am pleased we are debating this important fix.

H.R. 3427, the State Ethics Law Protection Act, will make it clear that Congress supports the right of States to fight corruption. States like Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky have passed laws like Illinois', and others are debating similar bills. They are all arriving at the same bipartisan conclusion: Corruption must be stamped out and pay-to-play made a thing of the past. Our States have shown they are ready for reform. It is now our duty to ensure they have the ability to do so.

At this critical juncture, we must do all we can to inspire the trust and confidence of people across the country. After all, without the people's trust, we cannot govern. I wish to thank Chairman Oberstar and the committee for bringing this bill to the floor and urge my colleagues to support the State Ethics Law Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3427, the State Ethics Law Protection Act of 2009. This simple bill goes a long way in closing a loophole that discourages states from enacting tough pay-to-play reforms.

Under current policy, states like Illinois that take a stand against corrupt practices by prohibiting the awarding of highway contracts to campaign contributors may jeopardize a share of their highway funding. In 2008, when a tough pay-to-play law was being considered in Illinois, the Federal Highway Administration intervened and threatened to withhold Federal dollars if the law was enacted.

The shameful and unethical string of crimes perpetrated by public officials in the State of Illinois is by now well known, but the FHWA's intervention led the General Assembly to water down what would have been a tough and effective anti-corruption law. What's more, the FHWA's application of this policy has been occasional and uneven. Of the eight states that have enacted pay-to-play legislation, only New Jersey and Illinois have been singled out.

H.R. 3427 will untie the hands of state legislatures that seek to take bold action to combat pay-to-play practices and restore the public's faith in government. It will also help ensure that federal dollars will not be wasted on contracts doled out to political cronies.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, which will help state legislatures hold the line against corruption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 3427, the State Ethics Law Protection Act.

In a day and age where indictments and allegations of wrongdoing have become all too common, in fact, in Illinois, people read the scandal du jour in their newspaper. In this event, many States and local governments have enacted laws to eliminate awarding contracting based on pay-to-play, a practice of trading campaign contributions for lucrative government contracts.

Sadly, a loophole in the Federal Highway Administration's contracting requirements is making it difficult, if not impossible, for States to implement these anti-corruption laws if they want to continue to receive Federal highway support. It is up to us in Washington to make sure that our constituents are best served and their taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely.

By amending the Federal Highway Administration's contracting requirements, we in Washington can ensure that States have every tool at their disposal to encourage and ensure transparency and accountability. Please join me in supporting H.R. 3427, the State Ethics Law Protection Act, to ensure our dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively.