Hearing Impairment

Democrats used congressional harings to put on a show when they were in charge. Now it's the Republicans' turn.

Carolyn Lochhead from the January 1996 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

Democrats are famous for bringing forth such experts as Sally Fields (to explain the neces sity for farm programs) and Bonnie Raitt (to explore the spirituality
of California redwoods). Ben Hur star Charlton Heston, a Republican, did testify last spring, but it was to beg for continued funding of the National Endowment for the Arts. And at a recent meeting of the House Commerce Committee, the Seniors Coalition, a Republican-inspired group, adopted the techniques of their Democratic counterpart, marching to the front of the room and dumping bags of direct-mail-generated telegrams in support of the GOP plan.

Although they have generally gotten the hang of things, the novice Republicans had a few rough starts. At a hearing on
securities litigation reform last spring, Democrats exposed the GOP's star witness as a litigant, while Republicans were outwitted by the witness they intended to skewer. The toughest question that Bill Lerach, king of class-action securities litigation, had to answer was how much money he made. And he cleverly brought with him two of his own clients, supposed victims of securities manipulation, from whom he managed to wring heart-wrenching testimony for his own cause. "It was painful to watch," said a tort-reform lobbyist. "It was obvious these guys didn't know what they were doing."

Hearings do serve some useful purposes. They are the primary means by which Congress pursues its constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch. The most interesting ones explore important public issues or unanswered questions, whether over Ruby Ridge and Waco or Watergate. Sometimes, as with the hearing on the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, they spin out of control, and in so doing illuminate the great ideological fissures of the time and the dirty inner workings of political warfare.

When he was baron of the House Commerce Committee, Michigan Democrat John Dingell made the investigative hearing an art form, calling in alleged miscreants from industry or Repub lican administrations and excoriating them with carefully researched accusations developed by a staff of more than 100. "If he heard or saw something that someone was doing that he didn't like," says Frederick Graefe, a lobbyist with Baker and Hostetler, a Washington law firm, "he'd subpoena them and make them testify, make them squirm under the lights, put them under oath and make them hire a lawyer."

Hearings can be quite significant in manipulating the news and focusing public debate. The new Republican majority has brought a radical switch in the subject of congressional hearings, elevating topics that never before had been discussed in such a prominent forum. "This was a big change for me," says a Democratic staffer on a Senate committee. "If there was some issue we wanted to shine a spotlight on, we'd just call a hearing when we were in the majority, and we can't do that anymore. Now Republicans can use hearings to shine a spotlight on something, like their revolutionary tax schemes, and next year, believe me, there will be tons of hearings on revolutionary tax schemes."

While most members relieve their boredom at hearings by reading their mail, going through papers, signing letters, or reading documents, sometimes they actually do try to avail themselves of the opportunity to question experts. But "with very few exceptions, most members of Congress have had their minds made up on a particular issue, whether Medicare or anything else, before the hearings are ever held," Graefe says. "The hearing satisfies their obligation to have a public airing of what they proposed. And the Republicans in the House this year aren't approaching hearings, in my judgment, any differently than House Democrats have done. There were hearings held, a bill was drafted, it had a markup, and it passed. I mean, that's been the process up here for many, many, many years."

Lobbyists fill hearing rooms, mainly because they often are the ones actually running the hearing. A former congressional staffer and trade-association lobbyist says most lobbyists show up because "to be honest, they feel they have to do it for their trade association, to show you're making some sort of effort to get your word in there." Lobbyists help find witnesses, write their testimony, and make up questions for members to ask. A common tactic, the lobbyist says, is to find a witness who personally touches a member.

When lobbying for health-research funding, she says, "sometimes you can perk up their attention if it's a discussion of a disease one of the committee members has or if his mother died of it. In that case, it can be influential." Lobbyists are "not at all shy to seize any kind of opportu nity to jump on someone," she says. "I'm sure it took all of 15 seconds for
the spinal-cord injury association to call Christopher Reeve to get him on their board, and I'm sure he'll be coming in his wheelchair to testify. You can evoke a lot of sympathy if you have someone come in a wheelchair or someone who evokes tearsfrom members."

So are laws written and policy shaped in a great democracy. But the Democratic staffer thinks hearings can educate members and the public. "You do learn stuff here," he says. "You learn from experts, and when they're testifying before Congress, people get up for it. You can attract some of the best people in various fields to give their expertise. And even if I'm not learning something, my guess is the press table is."