The Bureaucracy

1
The Bureaucracy  Bureaucracy the agencies,
departments, commissions, etc within the
executive branch who are charged with enforcing
the laws (that Congress makes) non
elected--(also means a large, complex
organization)
See handout
2
(No Transcript)
3
Types see handout

Michael ChertoffHOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY
(2005- )
Singer Janet Jackson performs with singer Justin
Timberlake during the halftime show at Super Bowl
XXXVIII in Houston, Texas, in this February 1,
2004 file photo. The Federal Communications
Commission late on Friday defended its decision
to fine 20 CBS Corp. television stations 550,000
for airing a brief breast flash by Jackson.
REUTERS/Win McNamee
FDA is an agency within the Department of Health
and Human Services
4
WHATS MISSING?
5
(No Transcript)
6

three main functions of bureaucracies
Implementation, administration and regulation

• Implementation
• The process of putting the new policies into
  practice, after a law has been passed
• Since policy directives are not often clearly
  defined, bureaucrats must interpret the meaning
  of the law.
• Thus, bureaucracy has administrative discretion
  in actual implementation.
• Administration
• The routine work.
• includes collection of fees, the issue of permits
  and the conducting of tests.
• Regulation
• Rules and regulations affecting the public.
• The administrative process through which they are
  enacted is known as rule making.
• Due to the lack of time and technical knowledge
  on the part of the Congress, it needs to delegate
  the authority of formulating rules and
  regulations
• E.g the Federal Communications Commission polices
  the nations radio and television networks

.
7

• THE LAW

Title 18 of the United States Code, Section
1464Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or
profane language by means of radio communication
shall be fined not more than 10,000 or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both
http//www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-
profanity
8
So this non-elected branch can be can be
significant policy makers

• Congress lacks expertise they have it
• Congress does not have time to do it all they
  have more
• Its not Congress job to work out the details
• but . . .

9

• The delegation of authority

Congress gave the Federal Communications
Commission FCC) the responsibility for
administratively enforcing the law that governs
these types of broadcasts. Among other things,
the FCC has authority to issue civil monetary
penalties, revoke a license, and deny a renewal
application. In addition, a federal district
court may impose fines and/or imprisonment for up
to two years on those who are convicted of
criminal violations of the law
10
Bureaucrats operate under a lot of constraints
Legal Constraints FOIA (1966) --Citizens have
the right to inspect all government records
except those containing military, intelligence or
trade secrets or revealing private personnel
actions Administrative Procedure Act (1946)--
Before adopting a new rule or policy, an agency
must give notice, solicit comments and hold
hearings Open Meeting Law (1976) every part
of every agency meting must be open to the public
unless certain matters are being discussed
(military, trade secret e.g.) Lack of clarity--
Title IX example Fragmentation Congress never
gives a job to just one agency--stopping drug
trafficking is task of Customs Service, FBI, DEA,
Border Patrol, Defense Department etc. lack of
resources Red Tape Sheer size
11
Your task . . . . .

• Assume you are the experts i.e. members of the
  FCC (you bureaucrat you) and that you must write
  regulations to put this into effect.
• Discuss what those devilish details will be and
  then . . .
• Write 6 regulations to put this law into effect

Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464
provides Whoever utters any obscene, indecent,
or profane language by means of radio
communication shall be fined not more than
10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or
both
12
Heres what the FCC did http//www.fcc.gov/guides/
obscenity-indecency-and-profanity (see print out)
13
Then you are confronted with this case George
Carlin 7 dirty words
14
George Carlin first listed in 1972 in his
monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on
Television".

• The words
• The words are
• Shit
• Piss
• Fuck
• Cunt
• Cocksucker
• Motherfucker
• Tits

15
Facts of the Case  During a mid-afternoon weekly
broadcast, a New York radio station aired George
Carlin's monologue, "Filthy Words." Carlin spoke
of the words that could not be said on the public
airwaves. His list included shit, piss, fuck,
cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. The
station warned listeners that the monologue
included "sensitive language which might be
regarded as offensive to some." The FCC received
a complaint from a man who stated that he had
heard the broadcast while driving with his young
son. Question  Does the First Amendment deny
government any power to restrict the public
broadcast of indecent language under any
circumstances?
16
No. The Court held that limited civil sanctions
could constitutionally be invoked against a radio
broadcast of patently offensive words dealing
with sex and execration. The words need not be
obscene to warrant sanctions. Audience, medium,
time of day, and method of transmission are
relevant factors in determining whether to invoke
sanctions. "When the Commission finds that a
pig has entered the parlor, the exercise of its
regulatory power does not depend on proof that
the pig is obscene 5 votes for FCC, 4 vote(s)
against http//www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1
977_77_528
17

 

TIMELINE ON ISSUES Key dates in dispute over broadcast indecency 1978 Supreme Court upholds a Federal Communications Commission penalty against Pacifica Foundation for its radio broadcast of comedian George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue. 2002 Singer Cher utters a single expletive during her acceptance of a "lifetime achievement" trophy at the Billboard Music Awards broadcast on Fox Television Stations. 2003 Bono, lead singer for U2, utters an expletive in his acceptance speech for a Golden Globes award show on NBC. The Parents Television Council files a complaint. 2004 In action tied to the Bono incident, the FCC formally reverses long-standing policy on "fleeting expletives" and says variants of an expletive with sexual and excretory connotations can be deemed indecent. 2006 In a sweeping order resolving numerous complaints, the FCC finds several incidents, including Cher's 2002 outburst, indecent under the new policy. The FCC does not fine the broadcasters because the material would have been permitted at the time it was aired. 2007 Fox and NBC challenge the new FCC policy, saying it is arbitrary and a violation of the Constitution's First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit sides with the broadcasters and rules the FCC policy is arbitrary, in violation of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. The appeals court suggests but does not definitively rule that the policy also would violate the First Amendment. Nov. 4, 2008 Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court.

18

Cher received an "Artist Achievement Award." In
her acceptance speech, she said

• "I've had unbelievable support in my life and
  I've worked really hard. I've had great people to
  work with. Oh, yeah, you know what? I've also had
  critics for the last 40 years saying that I was
  on my way out every year. Right. So f 'em. I
  still have a job and they don't."

19
Under the old policy, only repetitive and
intentional use of indecent language in a
broadcast would trigger FCC sanctions and, even
then, only if the conduct rose to the level of
verbal "shock treatment." For nearly 30 years,
that more forgiving standard established a
balance between broadcasters' First Amendment
free-speech rights and the government's interest
in helping parents protect their children from
indecency on radio and television. The FCC
changed its policy after a series of incidents on
live music-award shows. The offenders include
Cher, Bono, and Nicole Richie. In December 2003,
a Fox broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards
included an appearance by Paris Hilton and Ms.
Richie to promote their show "The Simple
Life." Hilton "Now, Nicole, remember, this is a
live show, watch the bad language." Richie "OK,
God." Hilton "It feels so good to be standing
here tonight." Richie "Yeah, instead of standing
in mud and live audio blocked. Why do they even
call it 'The Simple Life?' Have you ever tried to
get cow expletive out of a Prada purse? It's
not so expletive simple." (In the broadcast
only the first use of the "s" word was blocked,
the two other expletives were not.) Roughly 2.3
million viewers under 18 saw the program and 1.1
million were under 12, according to the
government. The FCC concluded that the program
included indecent language. The agency has the
power to fine broadcasters and/or revoke their
license. No punishment was imposed under the new
policy, but broadcasters were warned that they
would be punished in the future
20
Facts of the Case 

• In 2002 and 2003, Fox Television Stations
  broadcast the Billboard Music Awards, an annual
  program honoring top-selling musicians. During
  the broadcasts, one musician used an explicative
  in his acceptance speech, and a presenter used
  two expletives. The Federal Communications
  Commission (FCC), although it had previously
  taken the position that such fleeting and
  isolated expletives did not violate its indecency
  regime, issued notices of liability to Fox for
  broadcasting the profane language. The FCC argued
  that previous decisions referring to "fleeting"
  expletives were merely staff letters and dicta
  and did not accurately represent its position on
  the matter. Fox appealed the FCC sanctions to the
  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
• The Second Circuit held that the FCC's liability
  order was "arbitrary and capricious" under the
  governing Administrative Procedure Act because
  the FCC had completely reversed its position on
  fleeting expletives without giving a proper
  justification. The Second Circuit also failed to
  find any evidence that the expletives were
  harmful

21
Question  Is the FCC's order imposing liability
on Fox Television Stations for fleeting
expletives spoken during two nationally broadcast
awards ceremonies is "arbitrary and capricious"
under the Administrative Procedure Act, based on
the FCC's previous acceptance of similar
expletives?
22
Conclusion  No. The Supreme Court held that the
FCC's order was neither "arbitrary" nor
"capricious." Justice Antonin G. Scalia announced
the judgment of the court in which Chief Justice
John G. Roberts and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito joined in
part, reasoning that the FCC need not prove that
its change in policy is "better" than its prior
stance. Rather, the FCC need merely prove that
its new policy is "permissible" and that there
are good reasons for it, as in this case. Justice
Thomas wrote separately, concurring. Justice
Kennedy also wrote separately, concurring in part
and concurring in the judgment. He argued that
when the FCC changes policy, such that it
reverses its own precedent, it should explain
why. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He
argued that the FCC need explain why it changed
its policy and disagreed that the word "indecent"
allowed the FCC to punish the broadcast of "any"
expletive that has a "sexual or excretory
origin." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also
dissented. She noted, that while the First
Amendment issues surrounding the case were not
addressed, they "cast a shadow", and the Court
should be mindful that words "unpalatable to some
may be commonplace for others." Lastly, Justice
Stephen G. Breyer dissented and was joined by
Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. He argued
that the FCC failed to adequately explain why it
changed its policy and thus its order with
respect to the Fox Television Stations was
"arbitrary" and "capricious. Decision 5 votes
for FCC, 4 vote(s) against http//www.oyez.org/cas
es/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_582
23

• Cases already on the Supreme Court docket
  2011-12
• TELEVISION INDECENCY FCC v. Fox Television
  Stations
• AT ISSUE Whether the government's current TV
  indecency enforcement policies regarding
  profanity and sexual content violate the free
  speech and due process rights of broadcasters.
• THE CASE Controversial words and images have
  been aired in scripted and unscripted instances
  on all the major over-the-air networks in the
  past eight years, dating to when the FCC began
  considering a stronger, no-tolerance policy. The
  changes became known as the Golden Globes Rule,
  for singer Bono's 2003 acceptance speech at the
  live awards show on NBC, where he uttered the
  phrase "really, really, f---ing brilliant."
• THE ARGUMENTS The high court ruled two years ago
  in favor of the FCC over "fleeting expletives,"
  but the justices refused at the time to decide
  whether the policy violated the First Amendment
  guarantee of free speech, ruling only on the
  agency's enforcement power. The justices will now
  hear the larger constitutional issue after the
  Justice Department, in its new appeal, lumped
  both the expletives and nudity cases together.
• THE IMPACT The TV networks and its supporters
  have framed this case as a larger free speech
  dispute that could affect a range of expressive
  and artistic content. But the Obama
  administration and parents groups say the
  broadcast airwaves are a public resource
  deserving of tough, tight regulation when
  networks fail to properly monitor their
  programming.

24
The 2011-12 case

• Facts of the Case 
• In 2004, the Federal Communications Commission
  said that TV stations could be fined for
  indecency violations in cases when a vulgarity
  was broadcast during a live program. That
  happened on Fox in 2002 and 2003 when Cher and
  Nicole Richie cursed during award shows and were
  not bleeped.?The FCC never actually fined Fox,
  but the network took issue with the regulatory
  agency setting the stage for future fines and
  challenged the fleeting-expletive rules. The U.S.
  Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled
  that the FCC's rules were "unconstitutionally
  vague" and had a "chilling effect."
• Question 
• Does current indecency enforcement regime violate
  the First or Fifth Amendments?

25
The FCC obscenity guidelines have never been
applied to non-broadcast media such as cable
television or satellite radio. It is widely held
that the FCC's authorizing legislation
(particularly the Communications Act of 1934 and
the Telecommunications Act of 1996) does not
enable the FCC to regulate content on
subscription-based services, which include cable
television, satellite television, and
pay-per-view television. Whether the FCC or the
Department of Justice could be empowered by the
Congress to restrict indecent content on cable
television without such legislation violating the
Constitution has never been settled by a court of
law
26

• Federal Communications Commission v. Fox
  Television Stations (2009) A 2009 legal case in
  which the United States Supreme Court upheld
  regulations of the Federal Communications
  Commission that ban "fleeting expletives" on
  television broadcasts, finding they were not
  arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative
  Procedure Act.
• Federal Communications Commission v. Fox
  Television Stations (2012) A Supreme Court case,
  expected to be decided in 2012, about whether the
  FCC's scheme for regulating speech is
  unconstitutionally vague.

27
Making Regulations use of governmental
authority to control or change some practice in
the private sector Done by both IRA like FRB,
FCC, FTC, SEC IA like the EPA and Departments
like Dept of Commerce, US Dept of Health and
Human Services (FDA)

An Example F.D.A. Tentatively Declares Food
From Cloned Animals to Be Safe After years of
delay, the Food and Drug Administration
tentatively concluded yesterday that milk and
meat from some cloned farm animals are safe to
eat. That finding could make the United States
the first country to allow products from cloned
livestock to be sold in grocery stores.
Bob Schauf, with two of his cloned cows in
Barron, Wis. Mr. Schauf said his family has been
drinking the milk from cloned animals.Dec 29.
2006
28
November 17, 2010 F.D.A. Issues Warning Over
Alcoholic Energy Drinks By ABBY GOODNOUGH
The Food and Drug Administration sent warning
letters to four manufacturers of alcoholic energy
drinks on Wednesday, saying the caffeine added to
their beverages was unsafe. The popularity of
the drinks has exploded over the last few months,
and there have been numerous reports of young
people falling ill after drinking them. A brand
called Four Loko a fruit-flavored malt beverage
that has an alcohol content of 12 percent and as
much caffeine as a cup of coffee came under
particular scrutiny after students who drank it
this fall at Ramapo College in Mahwah, N.J,. and
Central Washington University in Ellensburg,
Wash., ended up in emergency rooms, some with
high levels of alcohol poisoning. The F.D.A.
announcement came a day after Phusion Projects,
the Chicago company that makes Four Loko, said it
would stop putting caffeine in the drink. The
companys founders said in a statement that while
they still believed it was safe to blend caffeine
and alcohol, they wanted to cooperate with
regulators. The F.D.A. began reviewing last
whether the drinks were safe a year ago this
month, at the urging of 18 attorneys general. At
issue was whether adding caffeine to alcoholic
beverages was generally regarded as safe, an
agency designation that requires accepted
scientific evidence.
29
Disputes over Regulation/De-regulation abound
30
Sept 2008 LA Times/Bloomberg poll
31
(No Transcript)
32
Issues about regulation in environmental
pollution cases command-and-control policy
the government tells business how to reach
certain goals, checks that these commands are
followed, and punishes offenders. Examples
include Requiring sulfur-removing scrubbers on
the smokestacks of coal-burning
utilities. Prohibitions against dumping of toxic
substances.
incentive system Give polluters or consumers an
economic incentive to reduce pollution Examples
include Pollution taxes Marketable pollution
permits Deposit-refund systems
Charles L. Schultze (chairman of President
Carter's Council of Economic Advisors
33

•                                                   
                Emissions trading (also known as
  cap and trade) I
• market-based approach used to control pollution
  by providing economic incentives for achieving
  reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
• A central authority (usually a governmental body)
  sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant
  that can be emitted.
• The limit or cap is allocated or sold to firms in
  the form of emissions permits which represent the
  right to emit or discharge a specific volume of
  the specified pollutant. Firms are required to
  hold a number of permits (or carbon credits)
  equivalent to their emissions. The total number
  of permits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total
  emissions to that level.
• Firms that need to increase their emission
  permits must buy permits from those who require
  fewer permits (Stavins 2001, p 4.).

34
From left, bank chiefs Lloyd Blankfein, James
Dimon, John Mack and Brian Moynihan are sworn in
on Capitol Hill earlier this month to testify
before the Congressional Financial Crisis Inquiry
Commission, which is investigating the causes of
the financial crisis
Jan WASHINGTONPresident Barack Obama proposed
new limits on the size and activities of the
nation's largest banks, pushing a more muscular
approach toward regulation that yanked down bank
stocks and raised the stakes in his campaign to
show he's tough on Wall Street. With former
Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker at his
side, Mr. Obama said he wanted to toughen
existing limits on the size of financial firms
and force them to choose between the protection
of the government's safety net and the
often-lucrative business of trading for their own
accounts or owning hedge funds or private-equity
funds. Mr. Volcker has been an outspoken advocate
of such rules until recently Mr. Obama's top
economic advisers, including Treasury Secretary
Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, were less
than enthusiastic. "Never again will the
American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that
is too big to fail," Mr. Obama said Thursday, two
days after voters crimped his ability to pursue
his agenda by sending a Republican to the Senate
to fill a vacancy created by the death of Edward
M. Kennedy. The election deprived Democrats of
the 60 votes often needed to get major measures
through the Senate.
35
The fate of the Obama proposal is uncertain. The
House already has passed a provision that would
give regulators new authority to limit the scope
and scale of banks. Congressional passage now
depends primarily on Senate Republicans. Several
Republican senators expressed skepticism about
the Obama proposal Thursday. "Let's solve
problems," said Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl.
"Let's not be finding a bogeyman so that we can
turn public attention away from what they're
doing wrong in the administration." But in a
political environment decidedly hostile to big
banks, Democrats might need only a few Republican
votes to enact a variant of what Mr. Obama called
"the Volcker rule." Sen. John McCain, the Arizona
Republican, said the White House appears to be
moving closer to a proposal he is co-sponsoring
that would reinstate restrictions on banks that
were repealed in the late 1990s. "It seems to me
that a number of the proposals Mr. Obama has
move in that direction," Sen. McCain said, "but I
haven't had a chance to examine the details
36
PRESIDENT can appoint top-level bureaucrats
fire top level bureaucrats reorganize executive
branch propose budgets use executive orders
Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
President Bush, seen here at the White House
Monday, has signed an executive order that in
effect increases his control over guidelines the
government issues regarding health, safety,
privacy and other issues. 1/29/07
37
Firing of US attorneys Was it too political?
UNDER OATH Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff
to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, testified
before a Senate committee Thursday .
38
Control of the Bureaucracy
CONGRESS controls budget (most important is
Appropriations committee) , influence appointment
of agency heads (senate and not a whole lot) ,
can reorganize, hold oversight hearings "sunset
legislation" that give agencies a limited time
and requires they justify their existence,
rewrite legislation to make it more detailed,
casework as source of information,
NPR November 17, 2010 The head of the
Transportation Security Administration is
defending controversial screening procedures at
the nation's airports that have everyone from
civil liberties groups to airline pilots
upset. TSA Administrator John Pistole told a
Senate panel Tuesday that the measures are a
balance between privacy and security. Pistole's
appearance before the Senate Homeland Security
and Government Affairs Committee came after
several days of criticism of the TSA's newly
enacted screening policies. Those policies give
travelers a choice of going through full-body
scanners at the some 60 airports where they are
installed or submit to an invasive pat-down by a
TSA officer.
A passenger at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport is subjected to a full-body scan.
Passengers who don't want the scan are given
invasive pat-downs. The measures have drawn
criticism from civil liberties groups and airline
pilots, but the head of the Transportation Safety
Administration defended the measures before a
Senate panel on Tuesday
39
The power of the purse! FY 2012 Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) Funding The FY 2012
Agriculture Appropriations bill (H.R. 2112),
which provides funding for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), passed the House June 16
217-203. The FDA funding level in H.R. 2112
remains unchanged from the measure passed by the
House Appropriations Committee in May, providing
2.163 billion for the FDA, a 284 million (11.6
percent) decrease from FY 2011 levels. While the
FY 2012 measure includes top-line funding levels
for Centers within the FDA, no program-specific
funding levels are provided. The report
accompanying the bill (H. Rept. 112-101) includes
language specifying that the FDA administrator is
to submit to Congress a spending plan allocating
funds by account, and within each account by
program, project and activity.
40
Congress may repeal the legislation that
authorizes the appointment of an executive
officer. But it "cannot reserve for itself the
power of an officer charged with the execution of
the laws except by impeachment" (Bowsher v. Synar
(1986)). Congress has from time to time changed
the number of justices in the Supreme Court.
41

• Courts control the bureaucracy
• Remember .we are a l_________ societyso
  interest groups often use courts to keep bur. in
  line
• Courts can force agencies to provide for info
  under ______, or to make meetings open
• Courts can interpret the lawis that really what
  Congress means?
• Courts can interpret the ___________--after all
  they trump here
• Courts can make sure regs are not willy nilly
  or _______ and ________

42
A Legacy Bush Can Control
AIR RIGHTS A coal-burning plant on Navajo land
near the Grand Canyon. Officials are considering
rules governing emissions at new power plants in
areas with the cleanest air.
EVERY president comes into office complaining
about the 11th-hour judicial appointments and
midnight regulations left on the White House
doorstep by his predecessor. And every president
turns around and does the same to his
successor. Adams did it to Jefferson. Teddy
Roosevelt did it to Taft. Carter did it to
Reagan. Bush I did it to Clinton. Clinton really
did it to Bush II. And now President Bush has his
cabinet and staff busily writing far-reaching
rules to keep his priorities on the environment,
public lands, homeland security, health and
safety in place long after the clock strikes
midnight and his presidential limousine turns
into a pumpkin.
43
January 12, 2009 Democrats Look for Ways to Undo
Late Bush Administration Rules By CHARLIE
SAVAGEWASHINGTON Democrats are hoping to roll
back a series of regulations issued late in the
Bush administration that weaken environmental
protections and other restrictions. Potential
targets include regulations allowing concealed
weapons in some national parks and forbidding
medical facilities that get federal money from
discriminating against doctors and nurses who
refuse, on religious grounds, to assist with
abortions. Congress is going to have to roll up
its sleeves and review these midnight
regulations, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of
Oregon, said in an interview, because its clear
that they are part of a desire for the
administration, as it heads out the door, to put
some ideological trophies on the wall.
44
(No Transcript)
45
U.S. Ends Protections for Wolves in 3 States
.
Gray wolves, like these, nearing a Bison in
Yellowstone National Park, will no longer receive
federal protection2/22/2008
46
February 22, 2008
U.S. Ends Protections for Wolves in 3 States
DENVER The Bush administration on Thursday
announced an end to federal protection for gray
wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, concluding
that the wolves were reproductively robust enough
to survive. Wolves are back, said Lynn
Scarlett, the deputy secretary of the Department
of the Interior, in a telephone conference call
with reporters. Gray wolves in the northern
Rocky Mountains are thriving and no longer need
protection. A coalition of wildlife and
environmental groups dismissed the governments
claims and announced plans for a lawsuit to
reverse the decision, which is to take effect
next month. Advocates for the animals said there
were too few wolves to make a genetically sound
population, and that state plans to manage wolf
populations were underfinanced and fueled by a
long-simmering animosity against wolves that
could drive them back to threatened status. The
numbers are inadequate and the state programs
are, too, said Louisa Willcox, a senior wildlife
advocate at the Natural Resources Defense
Council, a conservation group that is
participating in the planned lawsuit.
By KIRK JOHNSON
47
From a base population of 66 wolves introduced
into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho
in the mid-1990s, there are now nearly 1,300,
with an additional 230 or so in Montana that have
drifted down from Canada. State management plans
allow for wolf hunting, or outright eradication
in some places including most of Wyoming with
a target population of 150 in each of the three
states. Biologists cited by the environmental
and wildlife groups say that target population is
too small, and suggest instead that 2,000 to
3,000 animals are the minimum needed. Gray wolves
were first protected in 1974, one of the first
animals to be covered by the Endangered Species
Act, which was passed a year earlier. But it
turned out there were none left to protect across
most of the West. That led to the idea of
reintroduction, which began in 1995. Were not
at recovery yet, said Doug Honnold, the managing
attorney at the Northern Rockies office of
Earthjustice, a nonprofit legal group based in
Oakland, Calif. Were in the neighborhood, were
close, but were not there. Removing federal
protections now, Mr. Honnold said, would violate
the language of the Endangered Species Act that
requires decision makers to use the best possible
science in determining a viable target
population. Federal officials said their science
was sound.
48
(No Transcript)
49
Questions about Contracting out Govt Work

• Competition, intended to produce savings,
  appears to have sharply eroded. An analysis by
  The New York Times shows that fewer than half of
  all contract actions new contracts and
  payments against existing contracts are now
  subject to full and open competition. Just 48
  percent were competitive in 2005, down from 79
  percent in 2001.
• The most secret and politically delicate
  government jobs, like intelligence collection and
  budget preparation, are increasingly contracted
  out, despite regulations forbidding the
  outsourcing of inherently governmental work.
  Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on
  Government Oversight, a watchdog group, said
  allowing CACI workers to review other contractors
  captured in microcosm a government thats run by
  corporations.
• Agencies are crippled in their ability to seek
  low prices, supervise contractors and intervene
  when work goes off course because the number of
  government workers overseeing contracts has
  remained level as spending has shot up. One
  federal contractor explained candidly in a
  conference call with industry analysts last May
  that one of the side benefits of the contracting
  officers being so overwhelmed was that existing
  contracts were extended rather than put up for
  new competitive bidding.

50
The most successful contractors are not
necessarily those doing the best work, but those
who have mastered the special skill of selling to
Uncle Sam. The top 20 service contractors have
spent nearly 300 million since 2000 on lobbying
and have donated 23 million to political
campaigns. Weve created huge behemoths that are
doing 90 or 95 percent of their business with the
government, said Peter W. Singer, who wrote a
book on military outsourcing. Theyre not really
companies, theyre quasi agencies. Indeed, the
biggest federal contractor, Lockheed Martin,
which has spent 53 million on lobbying and 6
million on donations since 2000, gets more
federal money each year than the Departments of
Justice or Energy. Contracting almost always
leads to less public scrutiny, as government
programs are hidden behind closed corporate
doors. Companies, unlike agencies, are not
subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Members of Congress have sought unsuccessfully
for two years to get the Army to explain the
contracts for Blackwater USA security officers in
Iraq, which involved several costly layers of
subcontractors. Weighing the Limits
51
Theres something civil servants have that the
private sector doesnt, Mr. Walker said in an
interview. And that is the duty of loyalty to
the greater good the duty of loyalty to the
collective best interest of all rather than the
interest of a few. Companies have duties of
loyalty to their shareholders, not to the
country. Even the most outspoken critics
acknowledge that the government cannot operate
without contractors, which provide the surge
capacity to handle crises without expanding the
permanent bureaucracy. Contractors provide
specialized skills the government does not have.
And it is no secret that some government
executives favor contractors because they find
the federal bureaucracy slow, inflexible or
incompetent.
Boeing won a contract for the Secure Border
Initiative, which includes high-tech watchtowers
in Arizona. NYT Feb 3 2006
52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
Dick Armey, chairman of the FreedomWorks
Foundation, which plans to file a lawsuit against
the bailout program .
Some Ask if Bailout Is Unconstitutional . . .
Has Congress delegated too much authority