Congressional Oversight and Criticism

I think most of us can probably agree that it was not well-thought out for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to declare that "probably Larry King has interrogated people longer and better than that," in reference to a Federal Bureau of Investigation interrogation of Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab, the attempted Christmas Day bomber. Not only is it insulting to the FBI, it also just reveals a complete ignorance of what FBI agents do, and frankly, of what Larry King does. (Have you watched the show in a while? King is a pretty weak interviewer.)

And I think that illustrates a problem with Congressional criticism and oversight of federal agenices. One of the real pleasures of working on my beat is that the issues are low-profile enough to most Americans that the Senators and Representatives who gravitate towards them tend to be genuinely interested and fairly well-informed. No matter what anyone think of George Voinovich or Daniel Akaka's politics in general, no one can deny that they know their federal employee issues cold. But individual agencies fall under the jurisdiction of many committees, not all of which are equally interested in or knowledgeable about the actual operations of those agencies. As Wilson describes in Bureaucracy, it's hard enough for agencies to be answerable to multiple masters, much less to please all of them, especially if there are conflicting demands from committees with different levels of information and experience.

Of course, detailed knowledge of FBI interrogation protocols, even if you've got it, doesn't sound as good as a one-liner about Larry King. And that's another problem oversight and Congressional criticism of agencies: it's not simply happening in committee rooms anymore, but in forums like television and the internet, where those critiques spread faster, particularly if they're controversial. In a way, I think that transparency is a good thing. More access to and eyes on what agencies do, and what Congress thinks they should do, is generally a good thing. But political and management needs don't always go hand in hand. When they conflict, and a politician like McConnell makes a statement that's divorced from agency realities but that he clearly thought would be politically useful, both agencies and the politicians who critique them can end up burned.