What’s at Stake: Impact of Democratic control over Congressional oversight process
One of the most important results of the Democrats regaining control of one or both Houses would be the establishment of a strong alternative voice on Trump’s military and foreign policy adventurism. While neither party is likely to pass much legislation, the takeover of committee chairmanships by the Democrats will usher in a powerful new voice capable of forcing its way into national discussions.
It has been so long since Congress has exercised effective oversight that it’s hard to remember what it’s like. Today’s GOP congressional leadership has two modes: conspiracy theory and endless evil when Democrats are in office; “nothing to see here, folks, move along” when Republicans are. At present, the only way a Democratic member of Congress has to call attention to, for example, our increasing military involvement in Africa is to pen an op-ed or appear on a cable news show.
Calling a hearing and issuing subpoenas is a whole different thing. A hearing forces agency officials to gather information to prepare for the hearing and then go up to Capitol Hill to testify on the topic and answer questions. Even though the hearing doesn’t force the agency to change its behavior (as legislation would), the public exposure can put pressure on the agencies. Just consider two examples of oversight hearings from the Senate’s “golden age” (the Watergate Committee and the Church Committee, which both led to important reforms) and two more recent examples (the House “investigations” of “IRS abuses” and “Benghazi”). Though both Republican hearings were almost entirely without merit, the IRS hearings forced the government to end a legitimate IRS program that reviewed the tax exempt status of nonprofits, left and right, who edged close to the line of political involvement. And the endless Benghazi hearings were successful in manufacturing a widespread image of government incompetence and betrayal.
Committee chairmanship doesn’t just give the power to schedule hearings and demand information. Committee reports have standing and the words of a committee chair carry more weight. Trey Gowdy didn’t become smarter when he took over chairmanship of the House Investigations committee, but he did become more powerful and his words suddenly mattered more.
Changing House committee chairmanships would end the ability of House Republicans such as Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan to bully agency heads or subpoena records on ongoing FBI investigations. House Republicans would now be the ones airing their complaints on the Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham shows.
But the oversight process would also become an offensive weapon for the Democrats. Imagine a hearing where senators grill Trump’s Mar a Lago friends (under oath) about their behind-the-scenes, unofficial machinations to privatize DVA.
One factor that could increase the leverage of oversight hearings in defense and foreign policy is the attitude of agency leaders. In many civilian agencies (HUD, Education, and EPA, for example), the attitudes of political appointees match those of the president. President Trump would have no fundamental problems with Secretary Zinke’s plans to open national parks for drilling or Secretary De Vos’s privatization schemes. But the so-called “adults in the room” are often at odds with the president’s whims about parades, air strikes, threats against our allies, or compliments toward dictators. Another benefit of oversight hearings is that it could provide an official venue for defense and intelligence officials to document these concerns.
The most critical new hearings would examine Russian interference in the 2016 (and, presumably, 2018) elections. The Democrats would finally have a platform to subpoena campaign officials and outside groups such as Cambridge Analytica, Roger Stone, state election commissioners, and social media platforms, and to develop a full understanding of the dimensions of the interference.
Secondly, the Secretary of Defense and State would face repeated investigations of the North Korean fiasco. How close did we come to war? What did we give up (and get) in Singapore? What (if anything) did Kim agree to? What’s the current status of North Korea’s nuclear program? Where do we stand with South Korea, Japan, and other players?
But these hearings and investigations wouldn’t be confined to the issues that are already nightly “breaking news.” Committees such as Foreign Relations, Armed Services, Intelligence, Government Operations, Veterans Affairs, Judiciary, and others, would undoubtedly investigate and educate the public on issues such as:
Afghanistan. What is our objective? Do we have a strategy? What constitutes “winning?” How close are we?
Africa. What military commitments are we making? What’s the objective? What are the rules of engagement for the military?
Military budget and force structure. Why do we need continuing 10% annual increases? Are we buying the right weapons? Why do we continue to invest in Cold War capital items such as tanks and carriers?
Iranian nuclear program. What was the real status of the program and what is the result of our walking away from the agreement?
Yemen. Humanitarian and military/diplomatic impact of Saudi shadow war.
Military personnel. How would proposed transgender bans, removal of immigrants, and other actions affect recruitment, morale, and readiness? What are the financial and human costs (soldiers and families) of repeated deployments?
Sexual assaults. How widespread are sexual assaults in the military? What is being done about them?
Middle East peace process. Is there a Middle East Peace Process?
Qatar. Why did we support the Saudi/Gulf states boycott?
Alliances. State of alliances in Europe, Asia.
Tariffs. Military and diplomatic consequences of Trump tariffs
China. Military and diplomatic actions in East Asia and Africa
Trump organization. Investments/influence in foreign countries.
Classification. Decision process leading to presidential orders to declassify documents related to Carter Page, Bruce Ohr, and other FBI/Intelligence officials. Impact of these declassifications on present and future intelligence and law enforcement operations.
These hearings would have a powerful influence on the agencies. It is difficult to imagine, for example, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago buddies continuing to run Veterans Affairs behind the scenes after a series of hearings exposing these actions.
Leon Reed is a retired Congressional aide and defense consultant. He is a member of the Government Accountability Task Force of the Gettysburg Democracy for America.