AdamsRebecca. 2005. FEMA failure a perfect storm of bureaucracy. CQ Weekly, September 12, 2378.
2.
BarnettBarry J.1999. US government natural disaster assistance: Historical analysis and a proposal for the future. Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy & Management23:139–55.
3.
BarrStephen. 2001. One reason FEMA is no longer a disaster area. Washington Post, January 19, B-2.
4.
BibbyJohn. 1966. Committee characteristics and legislative oversight of administration. Midwest Journal of Political Science10:78–98.
5.
BibbyJohn. 1968. Congress' neglected function. In Republican papers, ed.LairdMelvin. New YorkPraeger.
6.
ClaiborneWilliam. 1993. “Culture” being clubbed; Mikulski, Witt intend to shake up FEMA. Washington Post, May 20, A-21.
7.
ClaiborneWilliam. 1994. Doling out praise, FEMA critic presses for reform at hearing. Washington. Post, March 25, A-21.
8.
ClaryBruce B.1985. The evolution and structure of natural hazard policies. Public Administration Review45:20–28.
9.
DoddLawrence C.SchottRichard L.. 1986. Congress and the administrative state. New York: Mac-Millan.
10.
EisnerMarc AllenMeierKenneth J.. 1990. Presidential control versus bureaucratic power. American Journal of Political Science34:269–87.
11.
FennoRichard. 1973. Congressmen in committees. Boston: Little, Brown.
12.
FennoRichard. 1977. U.S. house members in their constituencies: An exploration. American Political Science Review71:883–917.
13.
FennoRichard. 1978. Home style: House members in their districts. New York: Harper Collins.
14.
FiorinaMorris. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.
GertzBill. 1992. Mikulski faults FEMA officials, calls for probe. Washington Times, September 4, A-8.
17.
HallRichard L.1987. Participation and purpose in committee decision making. American Political Science Review81:105–28.
18.
HammondThomas H.KnottJack H.. 1996. Who controls the bureaucracy? Presidential power, congressional dominance, legal constraints, and bureaucratic autonomy in a model of multi-institutional policy-making. Journal of Law Economics & Organization12:119–66.
19.
HessStephen. 1976. Organizing the presidency. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
20.
HuntingtonSamuel. 1973. Congressional responses to the twentieth century. In Congress in America's future. 2nd ed., ed.TrumanDavid5–31. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
KrauseGeorge A.1999. A two-way street: The institutional dynamics of the modern administrative state. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
22.
LowiTheodore. 1969. The end of liberalism. New York: Norton.
23.
MayhewDavid. 1974. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
24.
McAllisterBill. 1996. Chief given cabinet status. Washington Post, February 27, A-17.
25.
McCubbinsMatthew D.SchwartzThomas1984. Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science28:165–79.
26.
MitnickBarry. 1980. The political economy of regulation, New York: Columbia University Press.
27.
MoeTerry M.1982. Regulatory performance and presidential administration. American Journal of Political Science26:197–224.
28.
MoeTerry M.1984. The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science28:739–77.
29.
MoeTerry M.1985. Control and feedback in economic regulation. American Political Science Review79:1094–116.
30.
MoeTerry M.1987. An assessment of the positive theory of congressional dominance. Legislative Studies Quarterly12:472–520.
31.
MoeTerry M.1997. The positive theory of public bureaucracy. In Perspectives on public choice: A handbook, ed.MuellerDennis C.455–80. New York: Cambridge University.
32.
MycoffJason D.PikaJoseph A.. 2007. Confrontation and compromise: Presidential and congressional leadership, 2001–2006. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little-field Publishers.
33.
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA).1993. Coping with catastrophe: Building an emergency management system to meet people's needs in natural and manmade disasters. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
34.
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA).1994. Review of actions taken to strengthen the nation's emergency management system. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
35.
OgulMorris S.1976. Congress oversees the bureaucracy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
36.
OgulMorris S.1977. Congressional oversight: Structure and incentives. In Congress reconsidered, ed.DoddLawrenceOppenheimerBruce207–21. New York: Praeger.
37.
PearsonJames. 1975. Oversight: A vital yet neglected congressional function. Kansas Law Review23:277–88.
38.
ScherSeymour. 1963. Conditions for legislative control. Journal of Politics25:526–61.
39.
SchneiderSaundra K.2005. Administrative breakdowns in the governmental response to Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review65 (September-October): 515–16.
40.
ScholzJohn T.1991. Cooperative regulatory enforcement and the politics of administrative effectiveness. American Political Science Review85:115–36.
41.
SeidmanHarold. 1975. Politics, position, and power: The dynamics of federal organization. New York: Oxford.
42.
ShipanCharles R.2004. Regulatory regimes, agency actions, and the conditional nature of congressional influence. American Political Science Review98:467–80.
43.
SnyderSusan K.WeingastBarry R.. 1999. The American system of shared powers: The president, congress, and the NLRB. Journal of Law Economics & Organization16:269–305.
44.
SpenceDavid. 1997. Administrative law and agency policy-making: Rethinking the positive theory of political control. Yale Journal on Regulation14:407–50.
45.
SylvesRichard. 1994. Ferment at FEMA: Reforming emergency management. Public Administration Review54:303–7.
46.
SylvesRichard. 2006. President Bush and Hurricane Katrina: A presidential leadership study. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science604:26–56.
47.
SylvesRichardCummingWilliam R.. 2004. FEMA's path to homeland security: 1973— 2003. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management1:1–21.
48.
SylvesRichardWaughWilliam L.Jr.1996. Disaster management in the U.S. and Canada. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.
49.
U.S. Congress. House. Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and the Response to Hurricane Katrina. 2006. A failure of initiative. 109th Cong., 2nd sess.katrina.house.gov/full-katrina-report.htm. Accessed May 2.
50.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. 1993. Rebuilding FEMA: Preparing for the next disaster. 103rd Cong., 1st sess. May 18.
51.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 2006. Hurricane Katrina: A nation still unprepared. hsgac.senate.gov/-files/Katrina/FullReport.pdf. Accessed May 2.
U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO). 1993. Disaster management: Recent disasters demonstrate the need to improve the nation's response strategy. Testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Nuclear Deterrence, Arms Control and Defense Intelligence. archive.gao.gov/d43tl4/149256.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2006.
54.
U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO). 2005. Hurricane Katrina: Providing oversight of the nation's preparedness, response and recovery activities. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives. www.gao.gov/new.items/d051053t.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2006.
55.
U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO)2006. Hurricane Katrina: GAO's preliminary observations regarding preparedness, response and recovery. Testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. www.gao.gov/new.items/d06442t.pdf. Accessed May 2.
56.
WeingastBarry R.1984. The congressional-bureaucratic system: A principal agent perspective (with applications to the SEC). Public Choice44:147–91.
57.
WeingastBarry R.MoranM. J.. 1983. Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policy-making by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy91:765–800.
58.
WestWilliam F.CooperJoseph1990. Legislative influence v. presidential dominance: Competing models of bureaucratic control. Political Science Quarterly104:581–606.