PDA

View Full Version : BS, If there ever was any!!


Mechanic
December 30th, 2003, 11:06 AM
Feds Pick Up Legal Bills for Contractors
By PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department spent $330 million in taxpayer money to reimburse its private contractors for legal bills over a 5 1/2-year span, including for lawsuits they lost and settlements of ---ual harassment and whistleblower allegations, congressional investigators report.

The department said Monday the reimbursements were legal and that it scrutinizes each legal bill before deciding to pay. But a key congressman said the reimbursements amount to a ``get-out-of-court free'' card for contractors who engage in wrongdoing.

``When a contractor for the DOE gets sued, 95 percent of the time its legal fees and settlement costs get reimbursed by the federal government,'' said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Energy Department is somewhat unique among federal agencies because private contractors run so many of its facilities, including national defense labs and former sites where nuclear weapons production activity took place.

The department's reimbursements came in 1,895 cases from late 1997 through March of this year, according to a report released by the General Accounting Office, the investigatory arm of Congress.

There were 814 cases involving workers compensation, 268 on equal employment opportunity, 100 from whistleblowers, 99 stemming from personal injury, 50 on wrongful termination of employment, 40 on radiation and different types of toxicity and 524 on other matters, the GAO said.

Of those, 563 cases are pending, including 290 on workers compensation and 56 on equal employment opportunity, the investigators reported.

The University of California is one of the department's contractors, operating three labs including the one at Los Alamos, N.M. Drawing fire from Markey, UC has in some cases invoked the 11th Amendment providing for state immunity from lawsuit by a private party in federal court.

``UC identified eight out of about 35 federal cases where it invoked immunity,'' the GAO report stated. ``Two were dismissed without further litigation because of this argument.''

``Officials at the University of California estimated that the university, in its role as a DOE contractor, has asserted other immunity-related defenses in at least 62 of about 137 cases, predominantly to defend against punitive damages,'' the GAO said.

Markey said that underwriting the costs of defending against lawsuits provides little incentive for Energy Department contractors to act within the law.

Markey said that one case of contractor reimbursement involved a $1 million jury award to a woman who sued Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for wrongful termination. She had testified in a ---ual harassment case on behalf of other lab workers.

One expert disagreed with Markey.

``You would expect in any large-scale operation like this to find a fair number of personnel actions, workers comp claims and the like,'' said Steve Schooner, co-director of the government procurement law program at George Washington University law school.

Schooner said the Energy Department's rules on reimbursing contractors' legal bills are actually more stringent than those at the Pentagon and at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The Defense Department and NASA do not have specific criteria prohibiting payments involving willful misconduct by management, lack of good faith or failure to exercise prudent business judgment, according to the GAO report. And Markey said DOE's criteria that prohibit payments apply only to ``senior managers,'' a term he says the department defines so narrowly that it excludes all but a tiny handful of contractor employees.

Another procurement expert, Charles Tiefer, a professor of government contracting at the University of Baltimore law school, said it's time for the government to revise its requirements on reimbursing company legal costs.

``While you'd expect all corporate managements to spend lavishly on their legal self-defense, only a few have the privilege of using a key to the Treasury, namely generous 100 percent cost-reimbursement contracts, to make the taxpayer foot the bill,'' said Tiefer.

Schooner says ``there's a certain zero-sum game aspect to all of this. If one of these contractors performs only government work and we refuse to reimburse them for a legitimate cost of doing business - which many legal costs are - then we've put them in an untenable position where they're operating at a loss.''

The Energy Department pays all reasonable litigation costs in most cases. It does not pay when the contractor is liable under the False Claims Act. Even when the contractors prevail, the department pays a maximum of 80 percent of reasonable litigation costs in a False Claims Act case.

``Where DOE contractors are found liable for their activities, we make sure that our contracts are properly written to reflect what current regulations are,'' department spokesman Joe Davis said.

Mechanic
January 1st, 2004, 07:24 AM
WITH A WHISPER, NOT A BANG


By David Martin 12/24/2003

Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily


O n December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of the signing - on a Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time Bush signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a spending bill that the President needed to sign, to prevent shutting down the federal government the following Monday.


By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.



By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote.

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters."


Congress passed the legislation around Thanksgiving. Except for U.S. Representative Charlie Gonzalez, all San Antonio's House members voted for the act. The Senate passed it with a voice vote to avoid individual accountability. While broadening the definition of "financial institution," the Bush administration is ramping up provisions within the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which granted the FBI the authority to obtain client records from banks by merely requesting the records in a "National Security Letter." To get the records, the FBI doesn't have to appear before a judge, nor demonstrate "probable cause" - reason to believe that the targeted client is involved in criminal or terrorist activity. Moreover, the National Security Letters are attached with a gag order, preventing any financial institution from informing its clients that their records have been surrendered to the FBI. If a financial institution breaches the gag order, it faces criminal penalties. And finally, the FBI will no longer be required to report to Congress how often they have used the National Security Letters.


Supporters of expanding the Patriot Act claim that the new law is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S. The FBI needs these new powers to be "expeditious and efficient" in its response to these new threats. Robert Summers, professor of international law and director of the new Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University, explains, "We don't go to war with the terrorists as we went to war with the Germans or the North Vietnamese. If we apply old methods of following the money, we will not be successful. We need to meet them on an even playing field to avoid another disaster."



"It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see."
— Robert Summers

Opponents of the PATRIOT Act and its expansion claim that safeguards like judicial oversight and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, are essential to prevent abuses of power. "There's a reason these protections were put into place," says Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, and a historian of U.S. political repression. "It has been shown that if you give [these agencies] this power they will abuse it. For any investigative agency, once you tell them that they must make sure that they protect the country from subversives, it inevitably gets translated into a program to silence dissent."


Opponents claim the FBI already has all the tools to stop crime and terrorism. Moreover, explains Patrick Filyk, an attorney and vice president of the local chapter of the ACLU, "The only thing the act accomplishes is the removal of judicial oversight and the transfer of more power to law enforcements agents."


This broadening of the Patriot Act represents a political victory for the Bush Administration's stealth legislative strategy to increase executive power. Last February, shortly before Bush launched the war on Iraq, the Center for Public Integrity obtained a draft of a comprehensive expansion of the Patriot Act, nicknamed Patriot Act II, written by Attorney General John Ashcroft's staff. Again, the timing was suspicious; it appeared that the Bush Administration was waiting for the start of the Iraq war to introduce Patriot Act II, and then exploit the crisis to ram it through Congress with little public debate.


The leak and ensuing public backlash frustrated the Bush administration's strategy, so Ashcroft and Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its parts into other legislation. By attaching the redefinition of "financial institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the expansion of the Patriot Act.


Even proponents of this expansion have expressed concern about these legislative tactics. "It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see," says St. Mary's Professor Robert Summers.


The Bush Administration has yet to answer pivotal questions about its latest constitutional coup: If these new executive powers are necessary to protect United States citizens, then why would the legislation not withstand the test of public debate? If the new act's provisions are in the public interest, why use stealth in ramming them through the legislative process? •