Final answer:
The statement that Congress members spend less time on oversight when there is a scandal is false. In fact, scandals generally lead to increased oversight as Congress investigates and responds to public concerns. Congressional oversight is otherwise accurately described as committee-based and affected by the lack of direct electoral advantages for members engaging in it.
Step-by-step explanation:
All of the following are true of congressional oversight EXCEPT that members spend less time on oversight when there is a scandal. Oversight is a key function of the U.S. Congress to monitor and regulate government agencies to ensure they are implementing laws effectively and as intended. It is accomplished primarily through the committee system within both the House and Senate, where specialized committees hold hearings, review budgets, and compile reports about various government agencies and programs.
Oversight hearings can be routine or, particularly when there is a notable scandal or issue of public concern, they can become more intensive and high-profile. Scandals often prompt more rigorous oversight efforts as Congress seeks to investigate potential wrongdoing, implement remedies, and hold bureaucrats accountable. The Governing Accountability Office (GAO) assists in this role by providing auditing, evaluation, and investigative services to Congress.
The statement that members spend less time on oversight during scandals is incorrect because such events usually lead to increased scrutiny and legislative attention as legislators look to demonstrate their responsiveness to public concerns and assert their oversight role. Conversely, the statement pointing out that the biggest obstacle to congressional oversight is the lack of electoral advantage is true, as members may not gain direct electoral benefits from involvement in oversight activities compared to other, more visible legislative actions.