President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Over the past 70 days, federal officials have doled out more than $250 billion in public money as part of the massive Wall Street rescue package passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush. You would think that the Treasury Department would have detailed reports of what institutions and individuals have received that money and why.

You would be wrong. Treasury has no such reports.

Even so, serious oversight of the program began last week with the first report by the Congressional Oversight Panel for Economic Stabilization. The panel was created by the law that authorized the bailout and is chaired by Elizabeth Warren, a widely-admired consumer advocate on the faculty of the Harvard Law School.

The report consists mainly of a series of reasonable questions in plain language that get to the core of an immensely complicated public program. The essence of it: The Treasury Department has some serious explaining to do.

Among the report’s astute — but unanswered — questions:

• Exactly what strategy is the Treasury Department using to decide how to distribute $700 billion in public money?
• Is the money distributed so far stabilizing financial markets?
• Is it reducing the number of mortgage foreclosures?
• What have financial institutions done with the large amounts of public money they have received so far?
• What is the Treasury Department doing to help the American family?
• Is the Treasury Department requiring financial institutions that get public money to reform the way they do business?
• Which institutions are getting public money, which are not and why?

This is a disarmingly fair inquiry. The request for an explanation of Treasury’s strategy, for example, is accompanied by an account of the five approaches it has tried to date and abandoned, asking the salient question of how this running from pillar to post fits into “an overall strategy.”

The oversight panel’s report confirms that Treasury has no system in place to monitor “the use of funds provided to specific financial institutions.” Then it asks how Treasury can know, in the absence of such a system, whether public funds are being used for the purposes authorized by the legislation.

One general question the report poses is whether the American public is receiving a “fair deal” in return for its money. The panel notes that private investors Warren Buffet and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority also have pumped billions of dollars into Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. In return, they have received preferred stock — i.e. an ownership stake — in the two financial giants.

Is the Treasury Department protecting the financial interests of the American people as well as Warren Buffet and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority are protecting their investors? The oversight committee would like to know.

The oversight panel lacks the statutory muscle to require Treasury to provide complete answers, a consequence of the Bush administration’s reluctance to agree to accountability as part of the program. As it is, the panel hasn’t even been accorded the practical courtesy of basic office accommodations.

Last week, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced legislation that she says will give a special inspector general added power and resources. Her colleagues passed it by unanimous consent. Ms. McCaskill told us she expects quick passage in the House of Representatives when the new Congress convenes next month. At that point, the new inspector general would be able to hire staff and being auditing the bailout’s operations. In its present form, the bill requires a complete report by July 1, 2009, on how public funds have been used.

Until then, the oversight panel’s report provides an immensely useful framework for public discussion and represents a refreshing departure from the jargon typical of bureaucracies and special interest groups.

The oversight panel and inspector general need answers from the Bush administration’s Treasury department. And with so much public money at stake — now, and for years to come — accountability must include just as much oversight of the officials of the Obama administration when it takes over on Jan. 20.