Congressional Democrats are stepping up their oversight of the Bush administration. Several of the steps Congress has taken, or is likely to take soon, have implications for the federal government's regulatory policy. One recent oversight hearing reflected concerns over scientific integrity within the White House. The impetus for two other hearings, and one potential hearing, is concern over the Bush administration's failure to enforce laws passed by Congress.

On Jan. 30, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held an oversight hearing regarding political interference in the work of government climate scientists. Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and ranking minority member Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) have made several requests for documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) related to the White House's influence on the work of government climate scientists. The requests date back to the 109th Congress. CEQ did not fulfill the requests.

Waxman argues that the White House has exerted its influence in order to downplay the threat of global climate change. In his opening statement, Waxman said, "We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimizing the potential dangers." Waxman's claim was backed up by a joint report by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project introduced at the hearing. According to the online news source Environment & Energy Daily (subscription required), Waxman now expects CEQ to be fully cooperative and does not anticipate the need to use the committee's power of subpoena to gather the information the committee needs.

On Feb. 6, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held an oversight hearing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Committee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), prodded EPA on several issues including political influence over air pollution standards, perchlorate contamination, and requirements, eased by EPA in December 2006, for facilities reporting toxic chemical discharges.

In her opening statement, Boxer gave reason as to why the committee had brought together such a variety of issues in one hearing: "These EPA rollbacks have common themes: they benefit polluters' bottom line, and they hurt our communities by allowing more pollution and reducing the information about pollution available to the public."

On Jan. 31, the House Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing on presidential signing statements. In the hearing, a counselor from the Department of Justice and a Georgetown University law professor defended President Bush's use of signing statements. Former Rep. Mickey Edwards and the president of the American Bar Association criticized signing statements on the grounds they pose a danger to constitutional checks and balances.

Presidents often issue such statements when signing a bill into law. Historically, presidents have used signing statements to express their personal opinion on a bill. However, Bush has received criticism for his practice of using signing statements to reserve the right to not enforce certain aspects of laws passed by Congress.

In his opening statement at the hearing, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) called signing statements "extra-constitutional conduct by the White House." He added, "That conduct threatens to deprive the American people of one of the basic rights of any democracy — the right to elect representatives who determine what the law is, subject only to the President's veto."

Congress has expressed further interest in investigating the administration's activities in enforcing laws. On Feb. 1, Rep. George Miller (D-CA), Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, wrote a letter to Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao criticizing the Department of Labor (DoL) for its slow implementation of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act (MINER Act), which was passed in response to the mine disasters in West Virginia and Kentucky early in 2006. Bush signed the act into law in June 2006, but critical elements of the law have gone unenforced, according to Miller's letter. Miller promised to take a "thorough look" at federal mine safety policy, and pledged committee oversight in 2007.

The tenor of these investigations indicates congressional Democrats' dissatisfaction with the way the Bush White House manages agency practices. The recent controversy surrounding Bush's amendments to Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review may trigger further congressional oversight. Overall, this spate of investigations is a clear sign that Congress will no longer sit idly by while the Bush administration shifts more and more power to the White House.