On the recordMarch 6, 2019
Mr. Chairman, I am a contractor. We do business and we build projects. If you want to see something that is going to skyrocket cost, the fact of asking what party and where they donate money has nothing to do with transparency. It just has to do with what political affiliation you have and it could weigh heavily in who is selected for a job, which has nothing to do with the job that you are doing. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Congressman Cole's amendment to maintain the status quo and prevent the government from using politics as a litmus test when evaluating bids from contractors. When the government buys goods or services, the only concern should be getting the best job at the best price, not who the company did or did not donate to in the last election. Companies should compete on value, not party loyalty. We see what happens when politics influences who receives government money. Let me give you an example. In December 2011, The Washington Post released a bombshell report finding ``Obama's green technology program was infused with politics at every level.'' The Post found, through its review of thousands of memos and emails, that ``Political considerations were raised repeatedly by company investors, Energy Department bureaucrats, and White House officials.'' Do you know what the result was? $500 million of taxpayer money went to a solar company, Solyndra, which went bankrupt.…





