![]() ![]() Congress’s ability to subpoena documents and testimony, and to hold individuals in contempt if they do not comply have long been important tools that the House and Senate have used as leverage against the executive branch. 5 But, in recent years, Congress’s efforts to conduct oversight of the executive branch, especially on high-profile matters, have become increasingly reliant on using the federal courts to enforce the legislature’s demands for information and testimony. ![]() Political science research that examines congressional investigations of the executive branch between 18, for example, finds that scrutiny is higher when different parties control the two branches. The idea that oversight is affected by partisanship is by no means new. While it is not clear how much of that evolution is the result of the capacity shifts outlined above, we have seen Congress receive more one-sided information in committee hearings than in the past and spend less time in those sessions learning about possible solutions to policy problems. In light of these trends, research suggests that Congress’s approach to processing information in committees has, in fact, changed. 3 Most individual member offices do not have large enough budgets to consider paying staff members at the maximum level, but the salary cap does affect the ability of committees, especially those with demands for sophisticated expertise, to attract and retain talent. ![]() The maximum amount that staff members can be paid is capped. In addition, the challenge of ensuring that members have access to the kind of experienced staff who can gather and process information effectively is made more difficult by current policies surrounding staff pay. 3 (The new Republican majority also eliminated the Office of Technology Assessment, an agency designed to provide Congress with analysis of complex scientific and technological issues.) ![]() House committee staff levels have periodically grown since the large reductions in the mid-1990s, but they remain lower than their pre-1995 levels. For example, Republicans assumed majorities in both chambers for the first time in 40 years in 1995 after promising to eliminate one-third of committee staff as part of the broader promise to reduce the size and scope of the federal government included in the Contract for America platform on which Republicans had contested the 1994 elections. 1 This research does not find a relationship between the number of legislative staff in House personal offices and legislative effectiveness, but if there are negative effects of staff levels on the functioning of congressional committees, then the House is ripe for them. In the absence of internal capacity to undertake these tasks, Congress is forced to either turn to outside sources-like lobbyists-to get the information members need or leave oversight undone.Įvidence from research on Congress suggests that in individual House member offices, the presence of highly-experienced staffers makes for more effective lawmakers. One involves the legislative branch’s capacity to gather and process information about what is happening in federal agencies and the White House-a task that requires sufficient staff resources. I argue we need not only changes to the oversight process, but broad congressional reforms that improve the institution’s capacity to address problems, enact legislation, and bolster legislative influence.Ĭongress’s challenges in exerting itself as a meaningful check on the executive branch take several forms. The experience of the House of Representatives over the past year, however, has revealed a number of persistent issues that plague the first branch as it attempts to assert its authority over the executive branch. Download the full brief Executive SummaryĬongressional oversight has been in the headlines for much of 2019 and is likely to remain a focus of legislative attention for the foreseeable future. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |