That's the objection coming from House Republicans to Rep. Carolyn Maloney's (D-NY) contracting bill (HR 3033) that would debar federal contractors if they are found to have violated federal contracting rules or laws. "Right now, there is nothing stopping a fraudulent contractor from bouncing from federal agency to federal agency, fleecing U.S. taxpayers the whole way," Maloney said. "Congress can and should do more to fortify the federal procurement system, and show the door to contractors lining their pockets at the expense of hardworking taxpayers." But according to an unnamed GOP staffer, it "would place many of the country's largest and most influential contractors at risk of losing out on future government work." [direct quotation of story, not staffer - ed.]. So, rather than force the country's largest and most influential(!) contractors to comply with federal contracting rules, the bill's opponents would prefer that the pillaging of federal resources continue virtually unabated. You see, Boeing, which "has been found guilty or entered into settlements for violations of numerous federal laws" and received some $22 billion in federal contracts in 2007, should be excused from dealing ethically with the government because, well, I'll let Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) explain: "By approving this bill, the committee sanctioned the possible elimination of Boeing and other vendors from the government marketplace," Davis said. "Of course, I support the appropriate use of the debarment process to prevent bad actors from getting federal contracts. But it always has been a means to protect the government, not to punish businesses." So there are some instances in which debarment is not punishment? "Violator-of-Numerous-Federal-Laws" Boeing is not a bad actor? Help me out here, Congressman.