The Oversight Agenda for the 110th Congress
By Ken Gold, Ph.D., and Marian Currinder, Ph.D.
Given the Democratic takeovers of both chambers, most observers are expecting a significant increase in oversight activity in the First Session of the 110th Congress that convenes in January. There is little debate over the charge that Congress largely abdicated its oversight responsibilities during the six years of the Bush administration. There is less agreement, however, over whether the decline in oversight was due solely to same party control of the White House and both chambers of Congress; or whether it was due in part to the general decline in the power of Congress vis-à-vis an activist presidency under George Bush. (For more on the subject of presidential power and the concept of the unitary executive, see Issue 29 in the Newsletter archive.)
Democrats hope to turn up the heat
It should be noted, for example, that during the 1 ½ year period 2001-2002 in which the Democrats controlled the Senate, there was little if any change in the level of oversight in the upper body. As stated by Majority Leader-elect Harry Reid (D-NV): “We need to re-establish the legislative branch of Congress…We have not had a legislative branch of government for six years.” Many Republicans share the view that Congress has been eclipsed by an activist executive in recent years, with former Majority Leader and incoming Assistant Minority Leader Trent Lott recently lamenting that “[w]e in Congress have abdicated our responsibilities in certain respects.”
The real questions involve not whether or not there will be greater oversight of the executive branch by Congress, but rather what forms it will take. By assuming the chairs of every committee and subcommittee, Democrats will quite suddenly have the power to question, examine and investigate administration policies and actions that have been largely off-limit to them for more than half a decade. How they choose to exercise that power may prove to be a real test of how the American people will ultimately judge the Democratic Party’s ability to govern.
A return to 1970s style oversight?
The new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate were elected in part on their promise to set a new direction, to end the politics of business as usual in Washington. There are a number of parallels between the 2006 elections and the 1974 elections, which swept in 75 new Democrats in the wake of the an unpopular war, an unpopular president, and the Watergate scandal. The class of ‘74 (which included both Henry Waxman [D-CA] and Charles Grassley [R-IA], two of the toughest oversight chairs in Congress) came to power with a mission to uproot the scandal politics of the old Washington and to reign in the imperial presidency of Richard Nixon. Their primary means for doing so was dramatically increased congressional oversight, which had its heyday in the mid-1970s. Whether the class of 2006 will be as effective as the class of ‘74 remains to be seen.
In addition to the war in Iraq, other potentially ripe areas for oversight include a range of homeland security issues, including investigating abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, oversight of various aspects of the Department of Homeland Security, responses to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and Defense Department contracting
Senate oversight: Leahy at Judiciary
Led by incoming Chairman Patrick Leahy, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are reportedly re-issuing dozens of demand to the Justice Department for classified documents regarding detention and possible abuses of terrorism suspects that until now have been either refused or ignored by the administration. Committee staff have identified more than 65 requests for such information concerning some of the administration’s most secretive and controversial policies and operations, as well as closely held information on immigration issues, voter fraud, and government secrecy.
Senator Leahy has already transmitted certain specific requests regarding CIA authorities granted by the administration and has stated his wish for greater cooperation from the White House, but he has also made clear that if such cooperation is not forthcoming he will not be reluctant to issue subpoenas and compel testimony under oath.
House oversight: Waxman and Dingell taking the lead
Incoming Chairmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Dingell (D-MI), are perhaps the most aggressive of the oversight chairs. Congressman Waxman’s House Government Reform Committee has the broadest jurisdiction of oversight of the executive branch and is seen by many as Congress’s fiercest investigator. While many suspect that Waxman will launch investigations of an almost unlimited set of concerns, he as well as the party leadership are cognizant of being labeled as a partisan bull dog and of providing campaign sound bites for the 2008 elections.
Congressman Dingell’s House Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over a number of hot-button issues, including consumer protection, food and drug safety, air quality, and telecommunications. Dingell chaired the Committee prior to the 1994 Republican takeover and was known for conducting far-reaching investigations. His requests for endless amounts of documents from federal agencies are legendary. The Food and Drug Administration is one of Dingell’s expected targets in the 110th Congress. He has said he will use his chairmanship to investigate drug safety procedures, generic drug availability, and dietary supplement safety.
James Oberstar (D-MN), incoming Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is anxious to roll out his oversight agenda for the 110th Congress. Oberstar will take the lead in investigating the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. He also plans to hold hearings on port security.
Incoming Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, George Miller (D-CA), was recently quoted as saying that there was no oversight under the Republican leadership. Congressman Miller’s committee has jurisdiction over the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. While he has not established a definitive oversight agenda, Congressman Miller plans to investigate voluntary compliance programs and employee reporting of OSHA violations.
GAO lays the groundwork
On November 17, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its biennial list of suggested areas of oversight by Congress. Although it has issued the list before, this was interesting on two counts. First, this was the first time the Comptroller General transmitted to Congress a letter in which he listed areas for oversight by priority, classifying 15 targets for near-term action; 13 in which he believes are in need of “fundamental reform and re-engineering; and eight “governance issues that should be addressed to help ensure an economical, efficient, effective, ethical, and equitable federal government …for the 21st century.”
Second, the report, titled Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress was deliberately delayed until after the November elections. It is no coincidence that the report could well provide the incoming Democratic chairs not only a blueprint for oversight and investigative activities, but also political cover as a defense against potential charges of being overzealous.
Comptroller General Walker pulled few punches in his letter in which he urged Members of Congress to engage in constructive oversight that offers federal agencies opportunities to share best practices, facilitate government wide transformation, hold people accountable for delivering positive results “while avoiding a further erosion of the public’s trust and confidence in government.” In echoing the main theme that brought the Democrats back to power in the November elections, he concluded that “we cannot continue business as usual in Washington.”
[PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION]
|
|
|  |
|
|
Over the next few weeks GAI will publish several special editions of the GAI Newsletter focusing on specific topics that are important to executive branch officials as a consequence of the November 7 election outcomes. As is the case with GAI’s New Congress programs, we will not seek to analyze the election results – but will seek to examine the implications of the election outcomes with regard to congressional organization and leadership, the legislative agenda, budget and spending issues, and other key legislative-executive branch topics, including congressional oversight. Upcoming newsletters will examine Budget Issues in the 110th Congress, Government Management Issues, the Outlook for Defense, and Prospects for Congressional Oversight. We welcome any comments you may have on our articles, and look forward to seeing many of you at our upcoming New Congress programs on the Hill.
--Ken Gold
The New Congress is a one-day course offered on Capitol Hill following the biennial congressional elections. It can also be arranged as a full- or half-day tailored course and conducted on-site at an organization.
Dec. 6, 2006
Jan. 23, 2007
Feb. 14, 2007
|
LETTERS
|
|
There are no letters for this article. To post your own letter, click Post Letter.
|
|
[POST LETTER]
|
|
|
|
