Popular and scholarly accounts argue that signing statements are important tools for presidents to shape the implementation of policy. Although signing statements might be important presidential tools, the legislative branch stands in the most immediate and direct competition with the executive for ultimate control of the bureaucracy. In this article, we assess whether congressional committees react to presidential signing statements with increased oversight. Using a data set that includes every oversight hearing held by the U.S. House between 1995 and 2007, we find evidence that congressional committees are sensitive to the number of objections raised by presidents in signing statements. As the president uses signing statements to object to a larger number of provisions in laws, the affected House committees respond with more oversight.
BallaS.DeeringC. (n.d.). Police patrols and fire alarms: An examination of the legislative preference for oversight (Working Paper at George Washington University). Retrieved from home.gwu.edu/~rocket/oversight.doc
5.
BawnK. (1995). Political control versus expertise: Congressional choices about administrative procedures. American Political Science Review, 89, 62-73.
6.
BeckN. (2007). From statistical nuisances to serious modeling: Changing how we think about the analysis of time-series—cross-sectional data. Political Analysis, 15, 97-100.
7.
BeckN.KatzJ. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-sectional data. American Political Science Review, 89, 634-647.
ChatfieldC. (2004). The analysis of time series: An introduction. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
11.
CooperP. (2002). By order of the president: The use and abuse of executive direct action. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
12.
CooperP. (2005). George W. Bush, Edgar Allan Poe, and the use and abuse of presidential signing statements. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35, 515-532.
13.
CrossF. B. (1988). The constitutional legitimacy and significance of “presidential signing statements.”Administrative Law Review, 40, 209.
14.
EndersW. (2009). Applied econometric time series. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
15.
EpsteinD.O’HalloranS. (1996). Divided government and the design of administrative procedures: A formal model and empirical test. Journal of Politics, 58, 393-417.
16.
EpsteinD.O’HalloranS. (1999). Delegating powers: A transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate powers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
FisherL. (2007). Signing statements: Constitutional and practical limits. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 16, 183-210.
18.
GarberM.WimmerK. (1987). Presidential signing statements as interpretations of legislative intent: An executive aggrandizement of power. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 24, 663-366.
19.
GormleyW. T.Jr.BallaS. J. (2008). Bureaucracy and democracy: Accountability and performance (2nd ed). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
20.
GreeneW. H. (2000). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21.
HalsteadT. J. (2007). Presidential signing statements: Constitutional and institutional implications. Retrieved from www.gao.gov/new.items/d08553t.pdf
22.
HalsteadT. J. (2008). Presidential signing statements: Executive aggrandizement, judicial ambivalence and congressional vituperation. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 563-591.
23.
HecloH. (1977). A government of strangers: Executive politics in Washington. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
24.
HowellW. G. (2003). Power without persuasion: The politics of direct presidential action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
HuberJ.ShipanC. R. (2002). Deliberate discretion? The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HuberJ. D.ShipanC. R.PfahlerM. (2001). Legislatures and statutory control of bureacracy. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 330-345.
27.
KaganE. (2001). Presidential administration. Harvard Law Review, 114, 2245-2385.
28.
KeeleL.KellyN. J. (2006). Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis, 14, 186-205.
29.
KelleyC. (2006). The significance of the presidential signing statement. In KelleyC. S. (Ed.), Executing the constitution: Putting the president back into the constitution. Albany: State University of New York Press.
30.
KelleyC. (2007). A matter of direction: The Reagan administration, the signing statement, and the 1986 Westlaw decision. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 16, 283-306.
31.
KelleyC.MarshallB. (2008). Assessing presidential power: Signing statements and veto threats as coordinated strategies. American Politics Research, 37, 508-533.
32.
LeeM. (2008). Reorienting the debate on presidential signing statements: The need for transparency in the president’s constitutional objections, reservations, and assertions of power. UCLA Law Review, 55, 705-744.
33.
LewisD. (2003). Presidents and the politics of agency design. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
34.
Library of Congress. (2009). Thomas: Legislative information on the internet. Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov
35.
LightP. C. (1982). The president’s agenda: Domestic policy choice from Kennedy to Carter. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
LongJ. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
LongJ. S.FreeseJ. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
38.
MacDonaldJ. (2007). Agency design and postlegislative influence over the bureaucracy. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 683-695.
39.
MaltzmanF. (1998). Competing principals: Committees, parties, and the organization of congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
40.
MayhewD. R. (2005). Divided we govern: Party control, lawmaking and investigations, 1946-2002. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
McCubbinsM. D.NollR. G.WeingastB. R. (1989). Structure and process, politics and policy: Administrative arrangements and the political control of agencies. Virginia Law Review, 75, 431-482.
42.
McCubbinsM. D.SchwartzT. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 165-179.
43.
MoeT. M. (1989). The politics of bureaucratic structure. In ChubbJ.PetersonP. (Eds.), Can the government govern?Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
44.
MoeT. M. (1993). Presidents, institutions, and theory. In EdwardsG. C.III.KesselJ. H.RockmanB. A. (Eds.), Researching the presidency: Vital questions, new approaches (pp. 337-385). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
45.
MoeT. M.WilsonS. A. (1994). Presidents and the politics of structure. Law and Contemporary Problems, 57, 1-44.
46.
OgulM. S. (1976). Congress oversees the bureaucracy: Studies in legislative supervision. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
47.
OgulM. S.RockmanB. A. (1990). Overseeing oversight: New departures and old problems. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15, 5-24.
48.
OleszekW. J. (1995). Congressional procedures and the policy process. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
49.
PfiffnerJ. P. (2009, March/April). Presidential signing statements and their implications for public administration. Public Administration Review, 69, 249-255.
50.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.
51.
RourkeF. E. (1960). Administrative secrecy: A congressional dilemma. American Political Science Review, 54, 684-694.
52.
SalaB. (1998). In search of the administrative president: Presidential “decree” powers and policy implementation in the United States. In CareyJ. M.Soberg ShugartM. (Eds.), Executive decree authority (pp. 254-273). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SavageC. (2006, April30). Bush challenges hundreds of laws. The Boston Globe, p. A1.
54.
SavageC. (2007). Takeover: The return of the imperial presidency and the subversion of American democracy. New York, NY: Little, Brown.
55.
SavageC. (2009, April9). Obama’s embrace of Bush tactic riles Congress. New York Times, p. A16.
SpecterA. (2009, May14). The need to roll back presidential power grabs. New York Review of Books, 56(8).
58.
StimsonJ. A. (1985). Regression in time and space: A statistical essay. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 914-947.
59.
TribeL. (2006, August9). “Signing statements” are a phantom target. The Boston Globe, p. A9.
60.
U.S. Congress, Senate. (2006, July25). Congressional record (109th Congress, Second Session). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
61.
U.S. House of Representatives. Office of the Clerk. (2009). Historical Information about the United States House of Representatives. Retrieved from http://clerk.house.gov
62.
VuongQ. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57, 307-333.
63.
WeismanJ. (2009, July15). President’s signing statements anger lawmakers. Wall Street Journal, p. A6.
64.
WhitfordA. B. (2005). The pursuit of political control by multiple principals. Journal of Politics, 67, 29-49.
65.
WilsonS. E.ButlerD. M. (2007). A lot more to do: The sensitivity of time-series cross-sectional analyses to simple alternative specifications. Political Analysis, 15, 101-123.
66.
WisemanA. E. (2009). Delegation and positive-sum bureaucracies. Journal of Politics, 71, 998-1014.
