Last year’s midterm elections saw a new energy overtake the Democratic party, fueled by anger at the President and his administration as well as Republicans who turned a blind eye to the President’s excesses. In the weeks leading up to the vote, Democratic leaders vowed to use “every arrow in [their] quiver to find the truth” and to act as a long awaited check on the President’s power. In the intervening months, however, some of that populist momentum seems to have faded.
Before Democrats had even taken the House there was a chorus of voices cautioning against investigative overreach. Although misguided, this inundation seems to have taken a toll. Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, Richard Neal, has decided not to immediately request Trump’s tax returns, a task that Nancy Pelosi once assured the public would be “the easiest thing in the world.”
Democratic aides also assured us in October that the party had worked to put structures in place to ensure that they would streamline the oversight process and “hit the ground running.” Where are those plans now? While logistical restraints and the government shutdown have surely acted as obstacles, the Democrats’ exit out of the gate has not yet inspired confidence. The House has addressed the shutdown by passing a spending bill - why increase Trump’s incentive to prolong the standoff by holding off on oversight until the President ends his wall-related temper tantrum? This time could have been used to lay the logistical groundwork for oversight, as Rep. Elijah Cummings was doing last month. By picking off the low-hanging fruit, like requesting Trump’s tax returns, and issuing subpoenas while hiring the new staff that comes with being in the majority, committees would be prepared to dive into the hard work when they have their full membership.
We have by no means lost hope - some members are moving ahead, like Rep. Jerry Nadler whose threat of a subpoena might bring Acting A.G. Whitaker to testify before the House Judiciary Committee next month. However, the last two weeks have made clear that the forces advocating “restraint” and what we fear is “passivity” are numerous. It seems likely that Democratic leadership may require a counterweight fighting their apparent instinct to ruffle as few feathers as possible.
Congressional Oversight of Executive Branch
One of the most striking things about the Trump administration is the rate at which its leadership violates the law or empowers corporations to do so. This means that Congress’s oversight role is more urgent than ever before. It also means that House Democrats cannot afford to delay, especially since Congressional Republicans’ unwillingness to conduct oversight has put Congress two years behind in carrying out the institution’s constitutional obligations.
Some have worried that aggressive oversight will lead Trump and his punditry to call “witch hunt,” but it should be clear by this point that such a call is inevitable. Rather than be crippled by fear of this label, House Democrats should heed the advice of former Congressman Brad Miller to think creatively and recognize that new oversight strategies may be necessary for a President who plays by no rules. Not only will this provide much needed answers to the American people but it also represents the Democrats’ best bet at wresting control of the conversation away from the President. Don’t just take our word on this -- read political scientists who have literally written the book on Congress investigating the executive branch.
Hall of Shame: Rep. Richard Neal’s trepidation on Trump’s tax returns has earned him a place in this week’s hall of shame. The American people should have long ago had access to information about the President’s financial interests and allegiances he promised to provide in 2016. As we wrote in the American Prospect, we hope that Neal will soon reverse course, request the President’s returns, and then get to work on an aggressive oversight agenda.
For an idea of the work that lies ahead, check out RDP’s proposed draft agenda for Ways and Means.
Positive Spotlight: In an interview in November of last year, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson vowed to put the Trump administration’s immigration policies under the microscope. Unlike some other members of Congress, Thompson quickly followed through on his promises and has requested Homeland Security Secretary Kirsten Nielsen appear before his committee for questioning. He has also requested that Nielsen turn over all of the administration’s documents concerning the proposed border wall, the treatment of asylum seekers at ports of entry, and the treatment of children in U.S. Customs and Border Patrol custody.
Looking forward: News that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Katie Porter, and other progressives are joining House Financial Services officially broke last night. In other words, expect close oversight of Trump’s worst appointees (such as Kathy Kraninger at CFPB, Ben Carson at HUD, Steven Mnuchin at Treasury, and Joseph Otting at the OCC and FHFA -- more on him below) and the slow unfurling of Wall Street’s worst nightmare -- serious scrutiny from the people’s representatives in the House of Representatives.
Independent Agency Personnel
When the government finally reopens, there will be important federal agencies that essentially remain partially closed. The start of the 116th Congress saw the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) join four other independent agencies that lack a quorum, limiting these bodies’ authority to conduct business. One of those other agencies, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), is already limited due to having only one member and is at risk of becoming memberless as of March of this year.
There were twelve people confirmed to various agencies before the end of the 115th Congress, but that still leaves 43 seats vacant out of slightly more than 150 seats total. 33 of those seats are on boards that require political balance; 16 of the openings are for Democratic seats and 17 are for Republican seats. The remaining pending nominations to independent agencies that were submitted during the 115th Congress expired on January 2nd of this year. This staffing crisis will grow more severe in the near future as 43 people are serving expired terms.
While they receive comparatively little attention, independent agencies are essential to the proper functioning of our government. This starvation of personnel is a less conspicuous but perhaps more insidious attack on our government than the blatant abuse of power in other corners of the Trump administration. The potential impacts of this crisis on essential governmental services and the people’s confidence in their government should concern us all.
Unfortunately, while Minority Leader Schumer and other Senate Democrats have brought great energy to the government shutdown fight, they have failed to express similar outrage over the ongoing crisis at critical agencies like the MSPB and the EEOC.
Executive Branch Personnel
The personnel issue is not unique to independent agencies but extends throughout the executive branch. According to the Partnership for Public Service, there are presently 261 executive branch positions that remain unfilled for which the Trump administration has not yet put forward a nominee. While the President has submitted several troubling nominations in the past two weeks (see: William Barr who has elicited opposition for his position on the Mueller probe, his record on civil rights, and his industry connections), RDP would like to draw attention this week to the detrimental effects of the Trump administration’s continuing reluctance to fill roles promptly and its heavy reliance on acting officials.
Acting officials make up one-third of the President’s cabinet and are plentiful throughout several departments of the executive branch. These individuals face less scrutiny because they do not undergo a confirmation process, making it easy for industry insiders to make or renew contacts inside government and then cash out at the end of their temporary appointment. Acting officials also have limited powers, often undermining their agencies’ abilities to carry out mandated work and generate long-term projects that advance their missions. Since the mandate of these agencies is often to police corporate misconduct, this subtle form of Trump administration corruption is generating de facto handouts for corporate allies while ensuring that the government works less well for everybody else.
Far from being ashamed of his administration’s failures in this regard, Trump has recently stated that he prefers acting officials (actings give him “more flexibility”) and is in no rush to find permanent replacements. In our opinion, this more hidden aspect of Trump era corruption merits more attention.
Some acting officials to keep an eye on:
Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan - We’ve raised concerns about Shanahan before, and a recent Politico piece has cast further doubt on the former Boeing executive’s ability to carry out his new role with nothing but the public interest in mind.
Acting Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Joseph Otting - There are many reasons to be skeptical of Comptroller of the Currency, and now head of the FHFA, Joseph Otting. As Comptroller he has sought to weaken the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that at one point threatened the merger of OneWest bank and CIT bank, which he oversaw as OneWest’s CEO. Now he has been tapped to simultaneously head the FHFA, which controls mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae is currently being sued for allegedly failing to maintain properties in minority neighborhoods. Otting, who has stated that he has “personally never observed racism,” and who led OneWest bank during a period of time in which it has been accused of racially discriminatory practices, hardly seems like the best choice to address complex issues with potentially disparate impact on communities of color.
For more on Otting, read our blog post here.
2020
It’s early, but one January storyline is worth highlighting. As Democratic lawmakers weigh a run, some would-be candidates are purportedly cozying up to Wall Street. It’s too early to jump to any conclusions as to who (if anyone!) is making commitments to whom. However, as the race heats up, we will certainly be keeping an eye on these relationships -- especially since fundraising patterns often translate into influence over key executive branch appointments. It’s also noteworthy, and positive, that likely candidates are loathe to be associated with Wall Street.
Also worth monitoring: Will Democrats be similarly loathe to be associated with Silicon Valley executives who run excessively powerful and insufficiently regulated platform monopolies as Wall Street? Recall that the Revolving Door Project was critical of Sheryl Sandberg’s effort to become Secretary of the Treasury in a potential Hillary Clinton administration.
Want more?
Check out some of the pieces that we have published or contributed research or thoughts to this month:
The Democrats’ Richie Neal Problem
The Oversight Options Available to the House Ways and Means Committee
One Trump Appointee, Two Jobs, Too Many Causes for Concern
Prosecute Donald Trump To The Full Extent Of The Law
House Democrats Not Rushing To Get Trump’s Tax Returns
It’s Time for Congress’ New Members to Use Their Long-Forgotten Oversight Powers
Ocasio-Cortez may take on Wall Street, fellow Democrats on finance panel
Another agency head leaves the Trump administration -- and this one hasn't even been confirmed yet