The Post had a
good piece on reports to Congress Saturday, though I don't think it was quite cynical enough. The first paragraph, but you should really read the whole thing:
Every year, as required by law, the U.S. government prepares an official report to Congress on Dog and Cat Fur Protection. The task requires at least 15 employees in at least six different federal offices.
Points I'd emphasize:
Some Congressperson gets a bee in their bonnet, maybe it's a result of a flap in the media, maybe it's a valid concern, maybe it's not their bee, but a bee in the bonnets of one or more constituents. Maybe they can get legislation passed, something to proclaim to the homefolks the next time they run for reelection. Maybe not. But they can always ask for a report.
A report to Congress can be rationalized as a measure which forces the bureaucracy (which no one trusts, neither a Congressperson nor a constituent) to pay attention to the issue. But mostly it's a paragraph in a piece of legislation which looks impressive and can be proclaimed far and wide. or simply whispered in the ear of those with the bees. Often, as the article mentions, a provision for a report can be a method to fudge an issue, to argue that we don't have enough information to legislate wisely so let's start accumulating data, reports, so we can act down the road. "Down the road" often equates to "kicking the can down the road".
The reality is that nothing in legislation is self-executing. President Obama does not sit down with his Cabinet member going over new laws to talk about how they're going to be executed. Whether or not a legislative provision gets implemented is a question: are there groups interested in the issue who are going to push the bureaucracy? are the bureaucracy's managers (from President down the line) interested in getting the issue implemented? is there someone in Congress who is pushing the provision? what are the other priorities for the bureaucracy? does the provision fit within the wheelhouse of an existing bureaucracy or does it fall outside the boundaries of existing agencies and offices? how conscientious a bureaucrat is involved?
The likelihood is that any provision in a legislation is going to meet some of the above criteria, but a few may not. Assume that a requirement for a Congressional report is implemented, then the question becomes how long the implementation will last? That depends on Congress, the public, and the bureaucracy. Assume there was never much real public interest in a report--that it was really was put in the law to appease the Congressperson, to give them a meaningless victory. Then the issue is how long the Congressperson will hand around and how long the bureaucracy will go through the motions. Sometimes it happens that Father Time solves the problem by killing off or retiring the Congressperson and retiring the only bureaucrat who has the knowledge and the background of dealing with the report. When that happens, the words in the law become dead letters; no one reading them, no one following them, no one caring.
Although the above, and the the Post article, may seem like mockery of Congress and the bureaucracy, I can argue there's a certain logic at work here. (This will be like an argument from mid-20th century sociology: "
latent functions". Part of what's going on is a process of distinguishing big issues which can and should be handled by government from the epiphenomena (head cold makes me pompous) which our modern media throw up: the issues of the moment which seem important one day and totally frivolous the next year). Because we as a society can't easily figure out what's important, kicking the can down the road can make sense. If the issue is still important in a couple years, time may have clarified what approach legislation should take. If the issue has dwindled in importance, it can be left by the side of the road, with only a report to Congress marking its demise.
