Congressional Select Committee – Effective Oversight?

One of the key functions of Congress is oversight. It can conduct oversight in a number of ways but will do so most meaningfully via the creation of Select Committees which seek to investigate the actions of the executive branch. As this article will explain, the effectiveness of these Select Committees is almost always compromised by which ever party has control. Too often these committees will become a tool through which they can attack political opponents and hinder the effective workings of government. In other scenarios, Congress will almost effectively disregard their oversight function and turn a blind eye to the actions of the President. In very few instances do these committees find solutions to problems or hold those in power accountable.

Too often, Congressional Select Committees become witch hunts which look to undermine a political opponent rather than to hold anyone meaningfully accountable or discover solutions to serious political issues. A great example of this was the Benghazi Select Committee set up in 2015 after the Republican Party took control of the House of Representatives. The committee set out to investigate a serious matter, the deaths of four Americans during a raid on the US embassy in Benhgazi, Libya in 2012. However, six previous investigations had already been conducted, and this House investigation took over two years and cost $7million. For many, the Benghazi Select Committee was nothing more than an attempt to put the Democrat front runner for President, Hillary Clinton, on public trial. Clinton had been Secretary of State during the Benghazi attack and therefore had meaningful questions to answer. Nonetheless, the committee appeared to allow the hearings to drag on so that Clinton became embroiled whilst she was running for President in 2015/2016. In fact, the Benghazi committee lasted longer than the investigation into the events of 9/11. The Democrats ranking member, Elijah Cummins said, “after a full year, it now seems obvious that this investigation is being dragged out in order to attack Secretary Clinton and her campaign for president—squandering millions of taxpayer dollars in the process.” Even the Republican, Kevin McCarthy appeared to suggest that the committee was set up to expose Clinton, stating in 2015, “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.” Did the Benghazi Select Committee serve any useful purpose? It would appear not. The Benghazi attacks needed investigating and investigations had already taken place but the House Select Committee was a quite brazen attempt to embarrass a political rival rather than to find answers to important questions. Not quite the effective use of oversight that the founders had envisaged.

Again, once the opposing party takes control of the either house, they have too often looked to use the oversight function to settle scores, and this has often been experienced during Senate confirmation of judicial appointments. Back in 1987, President Reagan wanted to appoint Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Bork was well qualified for the job and yet the Democrat controlled Senate rejected his nomination, often turning the hearing into a circus around Bork’s suggested beliefs rather than his qualification for the role. The same was true in 2016 when a Republican controlled Senate refused to even her Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court Merrick Garland. With regularity we see that when the opposing party has control of the Senate, they are likely to use their oversight function in a manner that the founding fathers would not have imagined. Perhaps this is preferable to when the President’s party controls the Senate and nominees are accepted without the required due diligence.

Occasionally, extreme circumstances mean that a President faces weakened oversight. This was particularly the case after 9/11 when the President George W Bush had to contend with a Congress that was almost totally compliant with his wishes. Between 2003-2004 there were just 37 oversight hearings, despite the US being engaged in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and a violation of elements of the Bill of Rights with the Patriots Act. In contrast, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton ten years earlier there had been 135 oversight hearings. When the Democrats won back control of the House in 2006 oversight became more rigorous. In February 2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Robert Byrd said ‘Congress is not a rubber stamp or a presidential lapdog, obedient and unquestioning. Oversight, oversight, oversight is among our most important responsibilities, and oversight, oversight, oversight has been lacking for far too long’. The increased level of oversight was accepted by some Republicans who felt that there lack of oversight had helped to contribute to their defeat in the 2006 mid terms. However, other Republicans saw the increased oversight as the Democrats using their new found power to act as a spoiler and to damage the credibility of President Bush. Once again, too often oversight is lacking, but when it is found, it becomes easy to dismiss as being over zealous or a political hit job.

Ultimately, Congress’ oversight function can do little to prevent a determined president. In 2021, the House January 6^th Committee set out to explore and explain the events of January 6^th 2021, when supporters of President Trump wreaked havoc upon Congress. The committee was immediately compromised because so few Republicans wanted anything to do with it. In fact, just two Republicans agreed to serve, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney which meant that the committee immediately had the image of Democratic Party witch hunt rather than a meaningful exploration of events. The committee subpoenaed hundred of individuals including President Trump, but many still refused to comply. The committee’s final report made 17 points, including:

1. Trump lied about election fraud for the purpose of staying in power and asking for money.
2. He pressured Pence to illegally refuse to certify the election.
3. He pressured members of Congress to object to real electors.
4. He summoned the mob and told them to march on the Capitol, knowing some were armed.
5. He tweeted negatively about Pence at 2:24 p.m. on January 6, 2021, inciting more violence.
6. He spent the afternoon watching television, despite his advisers’ pleas for him to stop the violence.
7. This was all part of a conspiracy to overturn the election.
8. On January 6, the Defense Secretary, not Trump, called the National Guard.

Despite what was a damning report on the actions of President Trump, the public showed little interest in their findings and re-elected him in 2024.