Supporting Congressional Oversight

This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. A fundamental objective of congressional oversight is to hold exec. officials accountable for the implementation of delegated authority. This objective is especially important given the huge expansion of exec. influence in the modern era. Hence the importance of Congress exercising its implicit constitutional prerogative to check the delegated authority that it grants to fed. departments and agencies. This report: (1) highlights reasons for the expansion of the role and reach of gov¿t.; (2) discusses a few definitions of oversight; (3) spotlights three essential purposes of oversight; (4) comments upon a few oversight laws and rules; (5) reviews important oversight techniques; and (6) identifies incentives and disincentives to the conduct of oversight. Illus.

Congressional oversight activity has increased dramatically since the early 1970s. Congressional committees now spend more of their time holding hearings to review the activities of federal agencies, and committee staff members are busy collecting information about what goes on during program implementation. This book examines the reasons behind the surprising growth of congressional oversight. Using original data collected for this project, Joel D. Aberbach documents the increase in oversight activity and links it to changes in the political environment. He explores the political purposes served by oversight, the techniques Congress uses to uncover information about the activities of the federal bureaucracy, and the reasons why topics get on the oversight agenda. He concludes that even though the U.S. government system was not designed with a large administrative sector in mind, its ability to expose bureaucratic behavior to public scrutiny is impressive, and the Congress plays a vital role in this endeavor.

Throughout history congress has engaged in oversight of the executive branch -- the review, monitoring and supervision of the implementation of public policy. The first several Congresses inaugurated important oversight techniques as special investigations, reporting requirements, resolutions of inquiry, and use of the appropriations process to review executive activity. Contemporary developments, moreover, have increased the legislature's capacity and capabilities to check on and check the Executive. Public laws and congressional rules have measurably enhanced Congress's implied power under the Constitution to conduct oversight. Despite its lengthy heritage, oversight was not given explicit recognition in public law until enactment of the Legislative Reorganisation Act of 1946. That act required House and a Senate standing committees to exercise 'continuous watchfulness' over programs and agencies within their jurisdiction. Since the late 1960s Congress has shown increasing interest in oversight for several major reasons. These include the expansion in number and complexity of federal programs and agencies; increase in expenditures and personnel, including contract employees; rise (until recently) in the budget deficit; and the frequency divided government, with Congress and the White House controlled by different parties. Major partisan disagreements over priorities and processes also heighten conflict between the legislature and the executive. Oversight occurs in virtually any congressional activity and through a wide variety of channels, organisations, and structures. These range from formal committee hearings to informal Member contracts with executive officials, from staff studies to support agency reviews, and from casework conducted by Member offices to studies prepared by non-congressional entities, such as statutory commissions and offices of inspector general.