IN THE NEWS
Hearings, hearings, hearings. The next few months are likely to be dominated by Congressional hearings on Iraq, counterterrorism, surveillance, detention centers, you name it. Even if the Democrats lose whatever spine they gained for the midterm elections, we'll be talking about why we're not having hearings on these subjects.
The last several years have been criminally bad time for legislative oversight--or even getting Congress to play its shared role in warmaking and diplomacy. Here's a nice summary of exactly how bad it has been since the "Republican Revolution" of 1994: The numbers are striking. Examining reports of the House Government
Reform Committee, the journalist Susan Milligan found just 37 hearings described as "oversight"
in 2003-4, during the 108th Congress, down from 135 in 1993-94, during the last Congress dominated
by Democrats. The House Energy and Commerce Committee produced 117 pages of activity reports on
oversight during the 1993-94 cycle, compared with 24 pages during 2003-4. In the mid-1990s, the
Republican Congress took 140 hours of testimony on whether President Clinton had used his Christmas
mailing list to find potential campaign donors; in 2004-5, House Republicans took 12 hours of testimony
on Abu Ghraib.
Of course, there's going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight over what information the White House shares with Congress. What can it choose not to share? Does the executive branch have the privilege of making these choices? How much time will civilian and military leaders spend away from their jobs, testifying before Congress?
Of course, these are all dodges, easily batted aside. Back when Soviet leaders could annihilate American cities in mere minutes from making the decision to do so, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government arrived at a common understanding about Congressional oversight. Not only did Congress have the right to ask tough questions about the conduct of US foreign policy, it had the obligation to do so. Moreover, it was an equal partner with the executive branch in making that foreign policy, albeit in a much different role than the Presidency. The War Powers Act, the now-famous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, New York Times Co. v. U.S. (the Supreme Court's "Pentagon Papers" decision), and other landmark events cemented Congress' role in foreign policy, even when the most sensitive information is involved.
The executive branch has never been the sole custodian of US national security. Senator Mike Gravel had the right to enter the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, once they were leaked. Congress also had the right to summon top decision-makers in the executive branch to spend hours explaining what the United States was doing in Vietnam, and why. If anyone complains that the time spent testifying at House and Senate hearings is time spent away from "the job," they had best look at their job description again. Explaining to the other branch of government involved in making foreign policy, along with the American people, is just part of the job.
Comments