The quality of Congressional oversight has varied dramatically over time and across the House and Senate. In short, to improve its standing with the public, Congress needs to improve its oversight hearings. In contrast, bipartisan hearings that focus on problems of real concern, generate useful factual information, and demonstrate Member competence and cooperation can strengthen public confidence in Congress. Partisan barbs in a committee room can damage both parties while deepening public cynicism about elected officials. Highly partisan hearings or hearings that expose poor preparation by Members can damage public confidence in the institution. It is also important to note that oversight investigations provide a key lens through which the public views Congress. That bipartisan process is especially effective when the oversight investigation targets areas of shared concern like cybersecurity, terrorism, consumer fraud, health care innovation, infrastructure needs, or disaster recovery.īipartisan, fact-based oversight, when undertaken in good faith, offers a concrete mechanism for Members and staff to gather information, build cross-party relationships, and help in the healing of Congress. It does so not only by encouraging members to work together and exchange views, but also by helping them develop a mutual understanding of the issues at stake. Moreover, when conducted with respect for different points of view and a commitment to uncovering what really happened, oversight investigations can actually strengthen relationships between members of the two parties. Oversight inquiries offer the opportunity to do just that. To advance any issue, Members of Congress must find a way to reach agreement on key facts and what to do about them. Unlike the Executive Branch which operates under the command of a single leader, Congress has multiple leaders of equal standing. Oversight is not only a constitutional duty, it can, when properly carried out, contribute to solving problems and bridging political divides. … If there is fraud or abuse or waste or corruption in the federal government, it is the constitutional duty of Congress to find the facts and, as necessary, take corrective action.” “hen a committee of Congress seeks testimony and records by issuing a valid subpoena in the context of a duly authorized investigation, it has the Constitution’s blessing, and ultimately, it is acting not in its own interest, but for the benefit of the People of the United States. Without information, Congress would be shooting in the dark, unable to legislate “wisely or effectively.”Īlong the same lines, an earlier federal District Court opinion had this to say: Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served.” It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. “It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. The Supreme Court described the role of congressional oversight as follows: The power to investigate is key to Congress’ ability to inform the public, legislate wisely, and carry out other duties assigned to it by the Constitution. As part of that effort, the Committee solicited information on how Congress could improve its oversight function. The Levin Center at Wayne Law, created to honor the bipartisan oversight legacy of Senator Carl Levin, was invited to testify. Early this year, the House Modernization Committee held a hearing focused on restoring the capacity of Congress to meet the needs of the American people.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |