House Republicans have given oversight a bad name. Oversight should not be about baseless fishing expeditions (e.g., political pressure on Twitter), political payback (e.g., Hunter Biden), or obstruction of the Justice Department or local prosecutors (for instance, wholly overstepping congressional authority and violating states’ policing authority in harassing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg).
For starters, oversight hearings must have a legitimate legislative purpose. Done properly, an information-gathering and public-education process can provide the basis for thoughtful legislation. But when it comes to necessary oversight, Senate Democrats have done precious little despite an array of topics crying out for congressional investigation.
The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has triggered a slew of abortion bans, with devastating consequences for women and their families. The lawsuit filed in Texas by five women and two doctors documents the danger and suffering the state’s abortion ban has inflicted on women, the dire consequences for women who need appropriate care for miscarriages, and the impact on the medical profession.
A new report from the National Center for Health Statistics documents that even before Dobbs, the United States’ already-high maternal death rate was rising (32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2021 compared with 23.8 in 2020 and 20.1 in 2019), especially for Black women (2.6 times that of White women). After Dobbs, that figure can be expected to soar.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
Where are the Senate hearings on this health crisis? Senators should bring in a variety of health-care specialists, hospital officials, medical ethicists, women, families of female victims, sociologists and statisticians (to highlight the economic, emotional and family impact when women are forced to give birth against their will), and legal scholars (to, among other things, explain the inherent vagueness and unworkability of state statutes). Senate Republicans who have cheered these bans should see evidence of the harm they support.
Follow Jennifer Rubin's opinionsFollow
Hearings would serve an array of critical legislative purposes: to secure abortion access (despite the House’s forced-birth fanaticism), protect women’s right to travel to secure critical care, enact appropriate policy for military and federal civilian personnel, or appropriate funding for further study.
Simply because there is no legislative justification for investigating Hunter Biden does not mean that the Senate should ignore instances in which presidential relatives in White House positions might have personally benefited from self-dealing with foreign powers.
The Post’s Michael Kranish reported in February:
He sounds like the perfect witness to kick off a set of robust hearings. Before the House changed hands, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee had begun an inquiry. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has vowed to follow the money. But perhaps the Senate should kick this up a notch and form a select committee on foreign corruption and influence-peddling.
At issue would not be simply Kushner’s conflicts of interest (and the need for strict anti-nepotism laws), but the practice of former U.S. military officials consulting with the Saudis and other governments, the need to clarify and update the Foreign Agents Registration Act (e.g., if an outfit isn’t a news organization, should it have to register if it’s a mouthpiece for a foreign government’s propaganda?), the reporting requirements for all campaigns that have contact with representatives of a foreign government (a measure that should have been passed after the Mueller report documented multiple contacts between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russian officials). And, while they are at it, what happened to the need to pass legislation to enforce the foreign emoluments clause?
The Justice Department recently announced the findings of a horrifying report into the pattern and practice of civil rights abuses in the Louisville police department. The New York Times reported on the “use of excessive force; searches based on invalid and so-called no-knock warrants; unlawful car stops, detentions and harassment of people during street sweeps; and broad patterns of discrimination against Black people and those with behavioral health problems.”
Justice separately announced it would add the Memphis Police Department’s special units, implicated in the killing of Tyre Nichols, to the list of police departments it is investigating (e.g., Minneapolis, New York, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Mount Vernon, N.Y., Worcester, Mass., and the Louisiana State Police).
Republicans continue to deny there is such a thing as systemic racism. Well, let’s have a series of hearings to get to the bottom of this. Before racing to the inevitable standoff over police reform (which faltered after the murder of George Floyd), maybe some education for the public and for bury-their-head-in-the-sand lawmakers is warranted. Let’s hear from the Justice Department, crime statisticians, local police departments that have successfully reduced police abuse, community groups and victims’ families.
It seems that rather than engage in a useless back-and-forth with MAGA Republicans who refuse to acknowledge that White people are not the biggest victims of racism, Democrats would do well to put the facts on the table for all to see. After Floyd’s murder, they should have more faith in Americans’ ability to absorb disagreeable facts, confront systemic racism and demand real change. But that likely won’t happen without a broad effort to enlighten lawmakers and voters.
Perhaps I am a cockeyed optimist, but recent investigative efforts (from the Jan. 6, 2021, hearings to the Ukraine war) suggest facts do matter. Hearings, properly undertaken with an eye toward public consumption, can set out a persuasive public record. At the very least, Senate Democrats should force Republicans to confront reality — and the lies they tell themselves and their followers.
For starters, oversight hearings must have a legitimate legislative purpose. Done properly, an information-gathering and public-education process can provide the basis for thoughtful legislation. But when it comes to necessary oversight, Senate Democrats have done precious little despite an array of topics crying out for congressional investigation.
Abortion
Return to menuThe Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has triggered a slew of abortion bans, with devastating consequences for women and their families. The lawsuit filed in Texas by five women and two doctors documents the danger and suffering the state’s abortion ban has inflicted on women, the dire consequences for women who need appropriate care for miscarriages, and the impact on the medical profession.
A new report from the National Center for Health Statistics documents that even before Dobbs, the United States’ already-high maternal death rate was rising (32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2021 compared with 23.8 in 2020 and 20.1 in 2019), especially for Black women (2.6 times that of White women). After Dobbs, that figure can be expected to soar.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
Where are the Senate hearings on this health crisis? Senators should bring in a variety of health-care specialists, hospital officials, medical ethicists, women, families of female victims, sociologists and statisticians (to highlight the economic, emotional and family impact when women are forced to give birth against their will), and legal scholars (to, among other things, explain the inherent vagueness and unworkability of state statutes). Senate Republicans who have cheered these bans should see evidence of the harm they support.
Follow Jennifer Rubin's opinionsFollow
Hearings would serve an array of critical legislative purposes: to secure abortion access (despite the House’s forced-birth fanaticism), protect women’s right to travel to secure critical care, enact appropriate policy for military and federal civilian personnel, or appropriate funding for further study.
Foreign corruption and influence peddling
Return to menuSimply because there is no legislative justification for investigating Hunter Biden does not mean that the Senate should ignore instances in which presidential relatives in White House positions might have personally benefited from self-dealing with foreign powers.
The Post’s Michael Kranish reported in February:
In an interview for that piece, former president Donald Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton asked: “Why should Jared be worried about the Middle East? It’s a perfectly logical inference … that had something to do with business.”
He sounds like the perfect witness to kick off a set of robust hearings. Before the House changed hands, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee had begun an inquiry. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has vowed to follow the money. But perhaps the Senate should kick this up a notch and form a select committee on foreign corruption and influence-peddling.
At issue would not be simply Kushner’s conflicts of interest (and the need for strict anti-nepotism laws), but the practice of former U.S. military officials consulting with the Saudis and other governments, the need to clarify and update the Foreign Agents Registration Act (e.g., if an outfit isn’t a news organization, should it have to register if it’s a mouthpiece for a foreign government’s propaganda?), the reporting requirements for all campaigns that have contact with representatives of a foreign government (a measure that should have been passed after the Mueller report documented multiple contacts between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russian officials). And, while they are at it, what happened to the need to pass legislation to enforce the foreign emoluments clause?
Systemic racism in policing
Return to menuThe Justice Department recently announced the findings of a horrifying report into the pattern and practice of civil rights abuses in the Louisville police department. The New York Times reported on the “use of excessive force; searches based on invalid and so-called no-knock warrants; unlawful car stops, detentions and harassment of people during street sweeps; and broad patterns of discrimination against Black people and those with behavioral health problems.”
Justice separately announced it would add the Memphis Police Department’s special units, implicated in the killing of Tyre Nichols, to the list of police departments it is investigating (e.g., Minneapolis, New York, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Mount Vernon, N.Y., Worcester, Mass., and the Louisiana State Police).
Republicans continue to deny there is such a thing as systemic racism. Well, let’s have a series of hearings to get to the bottom of this. Before racing to the inevitable standoff over police reform (which faltered after the murder of George Floyd), maybe some education for the public and for bury-their-head-in-the-sand lawmakers is warranted. Let’s hear from the Justice Department, crime statisticians, local police departments that have successfully reduced police abuse, community groups and victims’ families.
It seems that rather than engage in a useless back-and-forth with MAGA Republicans who refuse to acknowledge that White people are not the biggest victims of racism, Democrats would do well to put the facts on the table for all to see. After Floyd’s murder, they should have more faith in Americans’ ability to absorb disagreeable facts, confront systemic racism and demand real change. But that likely won’t happen without a broad effort to enlighten lawmakers and voters.
Perhaps I am a cockeyed optimist, but recent investigative efforts (from the Jan. 6, 2021, hearings to the Ukraine war) suggest facts do matter. Hearings, properly undertaken with an eye toward public consumption, can set out a persuasive public record. At the very least, Senate Democrats should force Republicans to confront reality — and the lies they tell themselves and their followers.
