Today, we release part two of a series of quotes from a publication of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), entitiled the Congressional Oversight Manual.
The current president has called himself a king – and why not? All too often, the Supreme Court sometimes acts as a simple rubber stamp for the presidency. That’s why the oversight power of Congress to watch and correct the other two branches of government has become immensely important.
On the 29th, we provided part one of this review. Below, we offer our readers part two of our of essential quotes from the CRS study.
Defining Oversight
“Oversight is an activity that can be defined in many different ways. For instance, CRS has defined congressional oversight as the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. This definition encompasses a wide variety of potential legislative activities and does not restrict the oversight function to particular purposes, goals, or strategies.
“The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 provides a more formalist definition by directing that committees:
shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of such committee; and, for that purpose, shall study all pertinent reports and data submitted to the Congress by the agencies in the executive branch of the Government.
“This language could be taken to support a narrower view of what constitutes oversight that was common during that era. Today many observers would likely find this definition of oversight too limiting given the development of new channels for government information and public interest in accountability for public officials and agencies. Therefore, a slightly broader definition, such as the one offered by political scientist Joel D. Aberbach, might better reflect the modern understanding of the activities that make up congressional oversight.
“Aberbach defines oversight as:
congressional review of the actions of federal departments, agencies, and commissions and of the programs and polices they administer, including review during program and policy implementation as well as after the fact.
“The next two parts of this section introduce two additional frameworks that readers may find useful when thinking about the variety of oversight techniques and strategies available to Congress.
The Oversight Toolbox
“Much of the organization of the Congressional Oversight Manual is based on the idea that congressional oversight is a collection of tools and strategies that allow Congress to monitor the executive branch and gather information on its activities. This instrumental approach may make it particularly useful for identifying potential issues for oversight and developing and executing effective strategies for that oversight. In addition, while the Manual is oriented toward executive branch oversight, its lessons are also generally applicable to Congress’ oversight of other actors, including the judicial branch and private sector entities.
“For most practitioners, oversight is usually oriented to successfully investigating a specific issue or creating a general environment of accountability and transparency among Congress, the executive branch, and, ultimately, the public. Depending on the situation, it may be possible to achieve these goals through a variety of strategies, and their selection can be thought of as picking the best tool for the job.
Police Patrols and Fire Alarms
“Writing in 1984, political scientists Mathew McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz proposed a model for organizing congressional oversight activities that remains a useful tool for understanding oversight as a practice. In their article, the authors define two broad categories of congressional oversight: ‘police patrols’ and ‘fire alarms.’
“Police patrol oversight occurs when Congress, on its own initiative, ‘examines a sample of executive-agency activities, with the aim of detecting and remedying any violations of legislative goals and, by its surveillance, discouraging such violations.’ This strategy involves regular and general oversight activity by Congress and is consistent with a classic understanding of legislative oversight being conducted directly by committees and Members.
“One example of this type of oversight is the agency budget hearings held on an annual basis by the appropriations subcommittees in both houses. Those hearings provide committee members an opportunity to question leaders about the performance of their agencies, plans for the future, and specific issues of concern.
“Fire alarm oversight, on the other hand, occurs when ‘Congress establishes a system of rules, procedures, and informal practices that enable individual citizens and organized interest groups to examine administrative decisions, to charge executive agencies with violating congressional goals, and to seek remedies from agencies, courts, and Congress itself.’
“Fire alarm oversight creates a system that fosters transparency and uses other stakeholders and experts to monitor more activities with greater depth than Congress could on its own. When potential problems are identified, the expectation is that Congress will be better able to respond by focusing attention on known issues and working from expert analysis that has already been conducted.
“An example of fire-alarm oversight is the 2014 response to disclosure of significant wait times for care in some Veterans Health Administration facilities and the deaths of veterans waiting for care on those lists. Media outlets (including CNN) as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General reported on these issues. Once Congress was aware of the severity of the issues, Members responded with broad, bipartisan investigations into the agency’s performance and passed legislation seeking to address key findings.
The Purposes of Oversight of the Executive Branch
“Congress has engaged in oversight throughout its history. Investigating how the executive branch enforces laws, spends appropriations, and implements policies enables Congress to assess whether federal agencies and departments are operating in an effective, efficient, and economical manner and to gather information that may inform legislation. The expansion of the national government and bureaucracy has only increased Congress’s need for and use of oversight to check on and check the executive. This ‘checking’ function serves to protect Congress’s policymaking role and its place under Article I in the U.S. constitutional system of checks and balances.
