Checks on the Bureaucracy PDF

Control, Oversight, and Reform As mentioned earlier in the chapter, bureaucratic agencies participate in iron triangles, or issue networks, forming relationships with interest groups and congressional subcommittees. One concern, especially for bureaucrats in regulatory agencies, is that individuals...

Control, Oversight, and Reform As mentioned earlier in the chapter, bureaucratic agencies participate in iron triangles, or issue networks, forming relationships with interest groups and congressional subcommittees. One concern, especially for bureaucrats in regulatory agencies, is that individuals may undermine effective regulation if their own interests are more closely aligned with those who are being regulated rather than the mission of the agency, a problem known as agency capture. If a regulator has close ties to the industry being regulated--either through previous employment or, perhaps, expected future employment--he or she may be tempted to “look the other way,” instruct their subordinates to do so, or conduct their jobs in such a way as to benefit a few preferred clients. Controlling the Bureaucracy The system of separation of powers that the framers designed poses a special challenge to controlling the bureaucracy. Authority over the federal bureaucracy is divided among different branches, which means federal agencies and bureaus often have to answer to the president, Congress, and the federal courts. According to political scientist Joel Aberbach, “Since usually no one set of institutional actors has clear control and signals often conflict, it is difficult to hold the bureaucracy, or any other institution, reasonably to account.” The President As head of the executive branch, the president formally controls most of the federal bureaucracy. He or she has the authority to appoint and remove individuals at the top layers of the bureaucracy. Presidents appoint agency heads, subject to Senate confirmation, based on their ideology and willingness to carry out the administration’s goals. Presidents can also shape bureaucratic priorities in the annual budgets that they present to Congress and, with congressional approval, by reorganizing agencies. As discussed in Chapter 5, executive orders carry the force of law and typically instruct departments, agencies, and bureaus on how to implement policy. Presidents, however, often face roadblocks in trying to control the day-to-day functions of the bureaucracy. Bureaucratic discretion and the bureaucracy’s size and complexity all conspire against achieving quick results. There are millions of federal bureaucrats, and it would be impossible for the president or Congress to oversee all of them. Bureaucrats have discretion in how to implement legislation, and they often behave independently. Bureaucrats, or their agencies, may disagree with the policies passed by Congress or the president, stalling or avoiding its implementation. In one of the smaller battles of his presidency, Jimmy Carter (1977–1981) discovered one of the obstacles to his power when he confronted a problem that had apparently existed in the White House since the administration of Dwight David Eisenhower (1953–1961): mice. With maintenance personnel unable to control the mouse population, Carter called on the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior said that the mice were a problem for the General Services Administration (GSA) because Interior was only responsible for the grounds of the White House and not the building itself. GSA countered that the problem was Interior’s “since the mice were obviously migrating from outside.” Only after Carter “ordered an immediate meeting in his office of all concerned officials of the GSA, Department of Interior, White House administrators, and others” was progress made. Congress Congress plays a key role in controlling and guiding the bureaucracy. The Senate has power over confirmation for the higher levels of the federal service. Congress as a whole can pass legislation creating or terminating agencies and programs and, through the process of appropriation, has control over the resources that departments, bureaus, and agencies receive to carry out their tasks. Congressional committees, especially the House and Senate appropriations committees, are key players in these processes. Legislation can shape bureaucratic behavior by setting goals, priorities, and an organizational structure. Congress also uses an oversight process to influence what happens when agencies are up and running. Members of the bureaucracy may be required to testify before Congress, justifying their actions. Further, Congress has established its own bureaucracies to keep tabs on executive branch implementation. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an example of this type of agency. Through its oversight functions, Congress checks on how executive agencies are exercising their authority and whether they are spending the funds appropriated to them wisely. In a series of reports based on its investigations of preparedness and response regarding Hurricane Katrina, which had devastated New Orleans in August 2005, the GAO gave a list of evaluations and suggestions for the future. The GAO’s reports praised some parts of the bureaucracy, such as the Coast Guard. Yet the GAO also called out failed leadership, communication, and coordination within the executive branch. One report stated, “No one was designated in advance to lead the overall federal response in anticipation of the event despite clear warnings from the National Hurricane Center.” Congressional oversight of the bureaucracy includes conducting hearings or requiring information from the agencies. While the GAO conducted its investigations into Katrina, Congress conducted its own hearings into the federal government’s performance, at times grilling top officials on their actions or lack of action. Much of the sharpest questioning was directed at President Bush’s top political appointees. Testifying before the Senate in February 2006, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff “endured two and a half hours of intense political criticism” and offered an apology to Congress and the American people. “The worst element of this catastrophe personally is not criticism I’ve received,” he said, “but the derision of people who did have their suffering unnecessarily prolonged because this department did not perform.” A report by a bipartisan investigative committee in the House of Representatives was also scathing. It documented, in page after page, “a litany of mistakes, misjudgments, lapses, and absurdities all cascading together.” The “American people,” the report concluded, “don’t care about acronyms or organizational charts. They want to know who was supposed to do what, when, and whether the job got done. And if it didn’t get done, they want to know how we are going to make sure it does next time.” Impact of the Judiciary and the Media Decisions by the federal judiciary can significantly impact bureaucratic behavior. Judicial decisions may restrict the scope of bureaucratic action. In Michigan v. EPA (2015), the Supreme Court overturned the EPA’s limits on mercury, arsenic, and acidic gases emitted by coal-fired power plants, known as mercury and air toxics standards (MATS). Opponents, including the National Federation of Independent Business, challenged the regulation because compliance was expensive. The EPA estimated its rule would cost businesses $9.6 billion, although it might prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma cases each year. The majority ruling, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, determined that the EPA “unreasonably” interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided not to consider the costs of compliance and whether regulating the pollutants is “appropriate and necessary.” In general, the media seldom cover the workings of the federal bureaucracy. For this reason, most Americans are not well informed of the day-to-day workings of the vast bureaucracy, and numerous agencies exist that many Americans just aren’t aware of. As Walter Lippmann, scholar and commenter on American politics, noted in 1927, “The public will arrive in the middle of the third act and will leave before the last curtain, having stayed just long enough perhaps to decide who is the hero and who is the villain of the piece.” Therefore, public opinion rarely constrains bureaucratic behavior. When, however, the bureaucracy is involved in a major crisis or catastrophe--and especially when it appears that it has failed--it may find itself center stage in Lippmann’s play, with a full and angry audience in attendance. Such was the case after Hurricane Katrina. A year after its landfall on the Gulf Coast, thousands of residents were still waiting for federal help, and public opinion had turned against President Bush on his handling of the disaster. A national poll found that only 31 percent of Americans approved of his management of the storm, and 56 percent did not “believe that the country [was] ready for another disaster.” Reform and the Reliance on Private Organizations Following Katrina, investigators and members of Congress began to question both the government’s reliance on private contractors in relief efforts and governmental interference with private-sector efforts. Concerns included a lack of competition in awarding contracts for cleanup and recovery efforts, a failure to adequately employ local businesses and contractors, and a failure on the part of FEMA to have enough “sufficiently trained procurement professionals” to effectively manage and oversee the contracting process. According to a local official in Louisiana, FEMA had blocked private relief efforts as well: “We had Wal-mart deliver three trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn’t need them.” As it became clear that the effects from Katrina would be felt for years, many private organizations and individuals stepped up to help. Habitat for Humanity dispatched thousands of volunteers to the Gulf Coast to rebuild housing for low-income residents. Mary Gray founded Minnesota Helpers, a “Mississippi-to-Minnesota arts pipeline,” to provide opportunities for Gulf Coast artists to display and sell their work because few venues remained open in their own devastated communities. Federalism and the Fight against COVID-19 While the CDC developed and issued health guidelines to prevent the spread of COVID-19, state governments pursued their own policies to combat the disease. States faced pressure to reduce the devastating economic impact of business closures, and they began reopening at different rates. By June of 2020, many of the states that had reopened bars, beaches, and restaurants were experiencing a surge in coronavirus cases. In response, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut imposed a fourteen-day quarantine on visitors from states with outbreaks. The patchwork of policies enacted in the wake of COVID-19 demonstrates the benefits and drawbacks of our federal system in confronting infectious diseases. Americans want the implementation of national policy to be effective and strong. When they believe that it is not--they demand change. However, Americans do not want the federal bureaucracy to be too strong. When they feel that it has become too powerful, they worry. Both the separation of powers and the realities of American federalism shape the behaviors of the federal departments, agencies, and bureaus. Such is the complex nature of the American federal bureaucracy.