Congress Considers GAO a Key Oversight Tool
The Government Accountability Office (GAO), established by Congress in 1921 and originally called the General Accounting Office, is regarded as one of Congress’s essential oversight resources. It’s meant to provide bipartisan, expert audits and legal analyses concerning governmental operations and compliance with legal standards.
However, the situation for the GAO is becoming precarious. The current leader, Treasurer Jean Dodaro, will see their term expire in two months. According to GAO’s founding legislation, the Comptroller General is appointed by the President for a fifteen-year tenure, pending Senate approval.
The current administration has shown a clear preference for appointing individuals who are loyal to its agenda rather than to constitutional principles or congressional oversight. This could lead to a significant decline in the effectiveness of government oversight mechanisms.
Interestingly, the timing for the administration seems strategically advantageous. In August, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, in a 2-1 decision, that only the GAO has the standing to challenge violations concerning overspending, under a specific management law. Essentially, it’s not something that can be pursued by a fired or furloughed worker, agency, union, or non-benefit-eligible citizen.
Recent reports highlighted that the president is navigating the government shutdown as an opportunity to reshape parts of the federal government, targeting what he describes as the “Democratic machine” and laying off thousands of employees.
This shutdown only intensifies the power imbalance, as the Office of Management and Budget is executing a plan that consolidates authority from Congress to the presidency. Notably, not only can the president nominate the next Comptroller General, but the shutdown has effectively stalled GAO’s ability to release reports, conduct audits, or engage in court proceedings. This crisis has further put a halt to operations, with most employees furloughed and resources halted.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), another nonpartisan body created in 1974, recently reported that the shutdown could result in substantial economic losses, estimated between $7 billion and $14 billion. These losses are attributed to unpaid wages for federal employees and benefits for the public, leading to a declining GDP.
Reflecting on my early days as a Congressional employee in 1969, I was eager to absorb knowledge quickly. I remember grappling with topics in defense and foreign policy. The GAO’s reports shed light on issues like budget overruns in defense projects and the economic ramifications of military spending.
Additionally, I valued the training and insights provided by the Congressional Research Service, which has its origins in 1914, serving as a legislative reference for Congress. The head of this service is appointed by the Librarian of Congress, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
With the CBO’s establishment in 1974, it became a crucial part of a trio of agencies that fortified Congress’s legislative and oversight powers.
Key Congressional committees, filled with expert staff, include the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Joint Committee on Economic Affairs. The Technology Evaluation Bureau was also created in 1974 but was dissolved in 1995.
Congress’s trend of seeking specialized expertise reflects a broader reliance on knowledge that emerged from the Progressive Era. President Woodrow Wilson, who was influential during this time, advocated for applying scientific methods to analyze government and politics.
The Progressive Era also gave rise to various independent think tanks aimed at research and policy recommendations. Nowadays, these think tanks represent a wide spectrum of ideological beliefs. For instance, the Republican Party’s Project 2025 was introduced in 2023 by the conservative Heritage Foundation, led by Russell Vought, former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump.
While some politicians disparage academics that challenge their views, referring to them as “point-headed intellectuals,” Congress has generally managed to preserve a bipartisan respect for the expertise within its ranks, represented by the GAO, CBO, and the Congressional Research Service.
