Congress, where ya at?

Hey Congress, where ya at?

The current presidential administration bears much of the blame that circulates regarding the Iraq War. The executive branch of the government must shoulder the responsibility of a wartime United States; our president is the country’s commander in chief. However, the structure of the Constitution does not delegate full authority to the branch of the executive during times of war.

The legislative branch shares its own authority, and thusly its own responsibility, as well. The current Congress (the 109th in U.S. history) has relinquished its own power of oversight when examining the actions and policy of the executive branch. Oversight enables Congress to examine how legislation is carried out, in addition to “checking” and “balancing” the other two branches of government.

Under the Clinton administration, Congress began an oversight process to investigate whether or not President Clinton had used his Christmas card list to petition possible campaign contributors. The Congress took in roughly 140 hours of testimony on the matter. Contrast this with the number of testimony hours the current Congress took – 12 – when investigating the Abu-Ghraib abuse allegations.

The state of military involvement in Iraq has been given slighted attention. In June of this year, the Republican Congress began a debate to decide whether to enact formal resolution to “stay the course” over the largely Democrat position to “cut and run.” This debate was the first formal Congressional discussion on U.S. / Iraq military relations since 2002, when in October Congress voted for the use of force in Iraq.

In addition to the lowered numbers of oversight discussions in the legislative branch (between 1960 and 1970 there was an average of 5,700 subcommittees; between 2003 and 2004, roughly 2,100) the current presidential administration views oversight discussions as an annoyance and unnecessary. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld begrudgingly attended an Armed Services Committee meeting in August, only after Sen. Hillary Clinton turned Rumsfeld’s initial refusal into a favorable political issue for the Democrats.

Another example of how the current administration approaches oversight came in May 2004. The Armed Services Committee asked Rumsfeld and various Army personnel about proper chain of command. When Rumsfeld was about to demonstrate the command, he was informed that one of his accompanying generals neglected to bring the prepared chart.

A lack of interaction between both branches may cause many to feel that it is necessary for opposing parties to control the executive and legislative branches separately. Competition is good for the political market. However, it does not need to come to this. Congress is an independent force in the American government, as is the presidency.

Both need to keep an “eye out” on the other. Had Congress been more vocal about oversight discussions, or more vocal about a lack of cooperation on the part of the Bush administration, perhaps the Iraq war would not be in the position we find it now. It is necessary for Congress to reinvigorate oversight to minimize failures and to better, and quickly, adapt to changing circumstances. Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) said, “You don’t need the (oversight) hearings” when one party controls both the executive and legislative branches of government.

Hopefully, just as Rep. Delay, that ideology will be pushed out of Congress.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply