Today was the day I finally lost it. After hundreds of hours spent on Congressional committee hearings (listening to audio streams or reading transcripts), after over 40 oxdown hearing diaries since September and more than 100 hearing postings before that (starting when scarecrow asked me to include hearing info in the thread of his Monday morning posts), today’s House Financial Services Committee hearing with Geithner, Bernanke and Dudley was just too much.
I’m sick of watching hearings organized into 5 min question periods designed for sound bites and YouTube clips. I’m sick of watching ignorant Congress Members who can’t be bothered to stay for the whole hearing ask questions which if we’re lucky were written by a competent aide (which means the Congress Member doesn’t know enough to ask effective follow up) or if we’re not lucky are faux outrage grandstanding for a YouTube clip. I’m sick of watching witnesses permitted as Geithner, Bernanke and Dudley were today to distract, delay and in the end obscure when we are in such need of transparency and accountability.
Enough already.
Message to Congress: We’re in an economic crisis. A crisis that began a year and a half ago and that you have yet to show any interest in understanding let alone taking effective action to address. That has got to change. Right now. No more business as usual. It’s time to put aside your egos and your plans for re-election because it’s way past time for you to focus on what needs to be done for the millions of people who depend on you.
I know I’m not alone in being frustrated because rarely have I had to listen to a hearing alone (and for that I am profoundly grateful). So I’m going appeal to all my dear fellow hearing watchers: What do you think needs to be done? What should we be demanding from the committees?
Yesterday I called both the House Financial Services and the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committees and was told that there are no rules or other impediments for having committee counsel (or other committee staff) do the questioning during hearings. That’s something I think we need – knowledgeable, experienced lawyers questioning the witnesses. And they should have a support staff that includes the best investigators that can be found. When I mentioned this to William Black during his visit here yesterday he replied, as he had to several other questions, that what we need is our own Pecora investigation (something that John Anderson also recently suggested). From Wikipedia:
Following the Wall Street Crash, the U.S. economy had gone into a depression, and a large number of banks failed. The Pecora Commission initiated major reform of the American financial system. As Chief Counsel, Ferdinand Pecora personally examined many high-profile witnesses that included some of the nation’s most influential bankers and stockbrokers. As the Commission’s first witness, Richard Whitney, president of the New York Stock Exchange, declared that "The Exchange’s refusal to pay heed to popular demand for reform was simply a manifestation of courage to do those things which are right, regardless of how unpopular they may be for the time being." Other important members of the Wall Street financial community to give testimony before the Commission included investment bankers Otto H. Kahn, Charles E. Mitchell, Thomas W. Lamont, and Albert H. Wiggin, plus celebrated commodity market speculators such as Arthur W. Cutten. Given wide media coverage, the testimony of the powerful banker J.P. Morgan, Jr. caused a public outcry after he admitted under examination that he and many of his partners had not paid any income taxes in 1931 and 1932.
As reiterated by SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt during his 1995 testimony before the United States House of Representatives, the Pecora Commission uncovered a wide range of abusive practices on the part of banks and bank affiliates. These included a variety of conflicts of interest such as the underwriting of unsound securities in order to pay off bad bank loans as well as "pool operations" to support the price of bank stocks. The hearings galvanized broad public support for new securities laws. As a result of the Pecora Commission’s findings, the United States Congress passed the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, instituting disclosure laws for corporations seeking public financing, and in 1935 formed the SEC as a means to enforce the new Acts.
In 1939 Ferdinand Pecora published his memoirs that recounted details of the investigations. Titled "Wall Street Under Oath", Pecora wrote: "Bitterly hostile was Wall Street to the enactment of the regulatory legislation." As to disclosure rules, he stated that "Had there been full disclosure of what was being done in furtherance of these schemes, they could not long have survived the fierce light of publicity and criticism. Legal chicanery and pitch darkness were the banker’s stoutest allies."
Of course, the key to this kind of real investigation is who would lead it. William Black told us "Jack Blum and Saul Wisenberg (Dem., Rep) as counsel. Hire Dick Newsom and Chris Seefer as your key investigators".
Sounds good to me.
I’m considering calling up every single member of the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee tomorrow and demanding that they take the necessary steps to begin our own Pecora-type investigation: the Blum-Wisenberg investigation. In the mean time they could immediately make the hearings more effective by 1) staying for the entire hearing – they might learn something, 2) giving their time for questioning the witnesses to the most appropriate committee staff person and 3) dispensing with the 5 min rule.
What do you think?






32 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Bullseye.
Recommended.
I think you’re onto something. I too have been deeply frustrated watching Congressional hearings that are full of bombastic questioning but really do little to shed light on anything. If we can convince Congressional Reps. that their ineffectiveness in questioning is detrimental to their re-election they may just agree to change the structure of the committee hearings.
exactly! recommended and dugg
FWIW, I don’t watch the hearings and I don’t think this is particularly helpful, but I’ll throw it out anyway:
I think a better long term strategy would be some attempt to segregate some of the Committee members into two groups, the least bad on one hand and the worst of the worst on the other.
If we could get to that point, and that is a big “if,” because of the work involved, I think we could come up with some interesting strategies. If we could find two liberal/progressive Dems who would orchestrate their questions, it would really help. They could take turns asking initial questions that set up follow-up questions for another member. AFAIK, getting that kind of cooperation between Reps is pretty rare.
If we could accomplish it in one Committee, we could apply that strategy to other Committees.
As I know you already know, I think a lot of it would depend on support from the Rep’s daily, and afaik, they rarely cover what the rep asked in a public committee hearing. That’s not usually local news.
Selise, you are hitting a really critical target here.
If Congress, or any of those committees, found a very good Educational Psychologist, or someone with a background in learning, or in the psychology of learning, they’d get some good tips and pointers.
Right now, those 5-minute per legislator hearings are tailor-made for ADHD, as near as I can tell. They make it difficult to lay out a coherent questioning mode, and they tend to be scattershot (from what I’ve seen).
In order to comprehend anything as complex as the financial structures these committees need to understand requires asking question A, then following up. Then clarifying to be sure you comprehend the response correctly. We all know this; it’s the way we approach any meaningful conversation or interview.
When that structure breaks down — as on teevee, with it’s constant interuptions for ads, or talk radio (ditto), or other formats where time is cut and diced in ways that interupt the ‘flow’ of conversation, then the thought processes are constantly short-circuited.
Can you imagine a university faculty that spoke in 5-minute blips, then moved on, moved on: 5 minutes on Russian 18th century literature, then 5 on chemistry, then 5 on the history of the War of 1812, then 5 on a math equation…. although the content and subject matter of a Congressional hearing is more cohesive than what I’ve described here, in the sense that ALL of the 5-minute segments are generally addressing the same set of issues, the fact remains that the format is not aimed at learning, is not aimed at discovery, is not aimed at creating coherence.
Also, if you look at ed psych research, it becomes instantly clear that the value of repetion — repeating key themes, so that people synthesize the key info and critical features — is essential to mastering complex information. Yet at the beginning of a hearing, there’s no ‘roadmap’, no sense of what questions — specifically — need to be addressed in THAT hearing, and then no sense at the end of key topics that were discussed.
Without intro, discussion, review, summary, and ‘next steps/actions’, it’s difficult to get traction. It’s easy to get steamrolled (a la Tom DeLay), and it’s also easy to forget the info — but it’s not really possible for most people to grasp and synthesize key info unless they REPEAT and REVIEW it within 4 – 24 hours.
Take a look at this passage, which I just grabbed off Crooks&Liars, on a topic that never even raised a red flag today:
http://crooksandliars.com/susi…..-offshore-
If you even tried to ask about that in the format that Congress is currently using, I’m not sure you’d be done in 5 minutes! Yet you see how valuable, important, and urgent that info is.
Obviously it ties in with AIG, yet who can raise it in a 5 minute quickie Q&A?
No one.
Unless the time frames and questioning are changed, we’ll continue amusing ourselves to death, and trivializing our public life, with ADHD free-for-alls, which makes Congress look like a pack of jackasses and buffoons.
New format = urgent and critical.
Selise,
Thank you for all of the hard work you have been doing. I have so much respect for you. Thank you.
Shorter: the current format is one that constantly disrupts thinking.
It cuts up complex information into bits; cognitively, people simply cannot absorb the complex details and relationships they need to be mastering.
In addition, Geithner and Bernanke were repeatedly prevented from fully answering a question. They are dealing with extremely complex content, so they often prelude with attempts to put in context, or limit the scope of, what they’re about to say.
Sometimes, as with Abu Gonzo, this is just butt-covering stall for time and should not be tolerated.
BUT when you have no reason to distrust someone who testifies, it’s important to allow them to think through a complete, COHERENT response.
From a cognitive perspective, it appears to me that Congress cannot enact meaningful legislation because they’re too fragmented — these hearings fail to fully flesh out relationships, and are incoherent.
Imagine trying to take a train 200 miles, and having it jolt every ten seconds, where you had to reorient yourself and start again. Crazymaking!
And it’s going to produce bad outcomes — in this case, overly complex, full-of-obfuscations, and fragmented thoughts. Bleh.
You rock selise! Thanks for calling the committees to check on the rules. I wonder where this 5 minute nonsense came from to begin with? Clearly, Congressional oversight has completely failed us. It is way past time to get some competent examiners interviewing witnesses in hearings. Maybe then Congressional oversight will become effective once again.
Right on.
The majority and minority should each retain superbly qualified and well prepared legal counsel to question the witnesses for exended periods.
I agree something needs to be done and your suggestions are good. As it is now, Administration officials and committee members both blow off their responsibilities. Neither side prepares.
In the current economic crisis, Administration officials just invoke “systemic risk” for everything, like it was some kind of curse or demon. It has no informative value whatsoever. You can tell too that something is wrong when nutter Republicans ask better questions than almost any of the Democrats. That there could be a whole hearing with AIG CEO Edward Liddy and for his connections to Goldman never to be brought up says it all. What does it say that Geithner ducks one hearing and then shows up at another but leaves early because he has “important” things to do. Only one guy asked Helicopter Ben by what authority he embarks on trillion dollar programs answerable to nobody and certainly not the Congress. A counsel would be able to force him to give a legal justification that could be taken to a court. As it is, 99% of what we get is blather. The only lesson to be taken away from that is that they don’t want us to know.
I wrote earlier today that there are hearings where witnesses are there to inform, not obfuscate. And the difference between such hearings and ones like today’s could not be more striking.
But at the same time, we need to hold members accountable. How many times have we heard stories where someone talks to a Senator or Congress member and it becomes immediately clear that they don’t know even the broad outlines of an issue that they are supposed to be experts on?
And finally, we need to hold Chairmen like Dodd and Frank more accountable in particular. They congratulate themselves, bloviate, and act like they are on top of all this. Then they go out and craft dreadful legislation.
Thanks, selise, for all of your hard work and steadfast devotion to what’s right for America.
The methods used for conducting these hearings needs to be re-thought. While I’m not sure I could take much more than five minutes of some of the republicans (and Waters was no hot shakes today either), something needs to be changed to make the hearings more meaningful. Facetime for the critters is nice, but if they could collectively, by party, put one person in charge, things could probably go more smoothly and be productive. The five minute gavel ain’t working.
Selise, your intelligence and diligence is much appreciated.
A companion issue under congressional purview: are citizens provided appropriate access to congressional hearings (crappy or otherwise)?
What percentage of the population has access to c-span 1 & 2 (our “gift from the cable industry”)? Appears access to these channels as part of “basic” cable depends on exclusive treaties between cable companies and local governments (who may trade it for grants of local govt access channels, etc – pushing c-span to higher priced tiers).
Also, presumably those who only have tv access via other types of providers (e.g. satellite) don’t have hearing access.
Seemingly, network tv can’t/wont effectively do justice to hearings, whatever their structure. Since c-span’s exclusive access to hearings is under immediate control of congress (as are, much less directly, the public air waves), perhaps this companion issue should also be on the congressional menu.
One would think as times become tougher fewer citizens will have access to congressional hearings (via expensive cable or high-speed internet) due to economic factors.
Preach On! Selise I would like some intelligent organization to the questioning like you know as if the Dems actually had a goal to achieve with the hearings and a plan to get to that goal.
I would like to see penalties for lying/perjury, contempt of Congress, refusing to testify, claiming that you don’t know the answer when that is why you were brought in to testify.
My Mom did a week in jail for contempt of court she yelled at a divorce court judge when was the last time anyone went to jail for treating Congress with less respect than a Divorce Court judge gets?
Grandstanding for cameras instead of getting to the truth PUNKS all of them Small Timers!
Could not agree more
Absolutely! This deserves a serious campaign.
(Sorry for going off on the companion issue – it’s a pet peeve)
I wonder, Selise, how long it will take you to realize nothing good will come out of this Congress or probably any other? and it’s not all their fault. We refuse to grapple with large issues. Must be something in the way our minds work. We go balistic over two hundred million of bonuses, but give a ho hum to trillion dollar payouts by Bernanke who seems to run by the seat of his pants. Doing nothing may be best. My crystal ball is no better than any and it’s been wrong a lot in the past, but I don’t think the bailouts will do it. The people who need and use their purchasing power won’t have it. It boils down to the rich not buying Chevrolets which means auto company bailouts have to go deeper than they do. When the failure is unmistakeable as I think it will be, we may have a different discussion. On the other hand, I could be wrong again. The bailouts will work, credit will flow again and everyone goes to work. For now everyone seems content to wait and see.
I completely share your frustration, Selise. I think there are rare instances where hearings bring new and interesting information and perspectives to light. Harry Markopolos’ testimony on the Madoff ponzi scheme before the House Financial subcommittee was an example. But such instances are very much the exception. I’ve become very, very selective in choosing which hearings I’ll watch at all and, even then, I turn them off quickly if it becomes obvious they’re the usual Congressional sturm und drang.
By the way, this article absolutely deserves front page billing on FDL.
Selise….Great diary. I just think so many people believe “we know what happened”. My suspicion is that we are a long way from the whole truth given the fact that my mortgage company continues to behave in illegal and irresponsible ways. (GMAC). I don’t think we have gotten to the bottom of the problem yet, and until we get people in there, who are willing to do the research and look for asymmetry instead of symmetry we are going to miss the truth.
thanks…keep doing what you do!!
selise,
Thanks for all your hard work on the hearings. I don’t know what to do about their kabuki. That alternative, to have no time limits, is a recipe for blowhards, and the senate’s longer time limits are an example of that.
I suspect there hasn’t been much attention paid to the full hearings, which is why the congresscritters feel free to use them for YouTube clips rather than substance.
Having knowledgeable people (staff) conduct the questioning would be great, but I have a hard time thinking that the critters would relinquish grandstanding.
I’ll think about it, but my first impression is that it would take a broadly based push back to get critters to be responsible.
Bravo, selise.
And the Dilbert cartoon is soooo fitting.
See also, from the NYTimes: Dear A.I.G., I Quit!
Must reading.
Selise you just hit another home run. Wondering what the lawyer folks and other knowledgeable folks at FDL think of Blum and Weisenberg as the two chosen for leading the questioning?
Will be calling the people on the committees. Do you have an easy link to their names.
I thought the clip that EW linked of Congressman Brad Sherman calling this another Kabuki theater moment in three stages… hit the nail on the head
http://emptywheel.firedoglake……out-badly/
Great diary entry. My expectations of Congress are far lower than most. This, e.g.,
makes me cringe.
It implies we are a passive and utterly dependent class of folk. Watching or listening to hearings is a passive activity. Calling Congressional aids is tantamount to writing a letter to them or the letters page of the Post.
The political process involves more than that; much more. More than just the vote, to be sure.
Congress is full of blithering idiots and buffoons. They’re the last group I would want to depend on, in a pinch, that’s for darn sure as mustard.
I share your frustration, Selise.
I have to agree with eCAHNomics on the blowhard issue. Imagine no time limits, and one of those long-winded Repubs getting up there and reciting the entire Declaration of Independence to preface his “question”.
These guys are mostly Lawyers – they’re taught from the get-go to obfuscate, confuse, and use the most torturous forms of linguistic contortionism. Expecting them to ask in plain English and without bombastic hyperbole is really asking a lot of such simple minds… /snark
Thank you selise, for all that you do …
BTW, selise, what you do is share, inform, cajole, enlighten, enthrall, annoy, encourage, confirm and inspire.
It is known as ‘leadership’.
You are very good at it.
;~D
David
thanks for all the great comments!
re the 5 minute time limit. i’m sorry i wasn’t clear – i only think the time limit can be gotten rid of by having committee counsel (or some appropriate designee) do the questioning (as has been done previously, i understand for example during the watergate hearings). so long as it is congress members doing the questioning, there absolutely must be a time limit. i just don’t think congress members are the right people to be doing the questioning on some matters – like the economic crisis when the witnesses are not trying to inform. as hugh notes above, when the witnesses are there to obfuscate, it’s a very different kind of hearing – and one congress has shown no ability to deal with.
committee contact info:
U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
P: (202) 224-7391
F: (202) 224-5137
House Financial Services Committee
Democratic Staff
2129 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Ph: (202) 225-4247
Fax: (202) 225-6952
links to the list of committee members:
House Financial Services Committee
Senate Banking Committee
toll free phone numbers (from katymine) to the capitol switchboard (call one of these numbers and then just ask for any congress member’s office):
(800) 828 – 0498
(800) 459 – 1887
(800) 614 – 2803
(866) 340 – 9281
(866) 338 – 1015
(877) 851 – 6437
i’ve got to get some coffee and do a couple of things, but then i’m going to make some calls. will report back here later…
thanks again to all.
I agree, and would add that even the hearings in which the members finally do pin down illegality, these committees do nothing about it. For two years and more now, we have had hearings. I have yet to see any substantive action resulting from any of them.
So yes, the hearings are typically structured miserably and perform poorly. But on top of that, these are only valuable (I’d argue) when they lead to some form of positive, corrective action. And they just never seem to do that.
Thanks selese. Yesterday wasn’t a “Hearing”!
Watergate was a hearing, as was the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition . This 5 or 7 minute or whatever, time limit has been one of my congressional pet peeves for as long as I can remember. It seems made for when you really don’t want to hold anybody actually responsible or even able to be responsive. If they really did want that, they could follow the Watergate or Iran-Contra model and it would be all over the networks, not just c-span3. They would have investigators and lawyers questions asked that would be answered or, by God, asked again until they were and absolutely no time constraints. That is, if they really wanted to get to the bottom of it.
for some reason – i just don’t believe he’s going to donate his bonus. (makes for sexy copy in the nytimes tho)
but i do believe this:
“I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.”
how do those folks get tracked down so a big red $ sign can be painted on their clothes?
I’ve come of the conclusion that the more engaged and apparently well-meaning Reps need the capacity to crowd-source for details and follow-up while they’re in session for these hearings.
There’s just a wealth of vast knowledge and lighting research that can be, they just have no means to tap it.
selise,
I was hoping you’d take a look at this http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/4415 and give some feedback, and perhaps have some interest in pursuing additional research with me. Doing some crowd-sourcing myself :)
Selise, I think this topic is so important that I came back the following day for an update. But I don’t see anything more here….?
I’ll check again later to see what you’ve put up and hope for some kind of update.
I think you have a brilliant strategic point here.
CasualObserver @ 27 – one good thing that could come out of them is information. yes, there’s lots more that we need but right now i’d love to see effective investigation so we’d have a better clue what is going on… and use that to think about what actions we want to take.
MichaelDG @ 28 – that’s a great link, thank you. do you know of any other examples of useful hearings? it seems to me we don’t have to reinvent the wheel here – just use what’s been used successfully in the past.
ImperialFlow @ 30 – thanks for the link to your diary. i will try to read and reply tomorrow, but i don’t think i’m going to have time to help much at least for a while. so sorry, it sounds awfully interesting (but i really do need to catch up on the reading i’ve already assigned myself first)
readerOfTeaLeaves @ 31 – thanks for coming back. i made some phone calls and will make some more tomorrow. but i don’t think i’ve been able to convince many people here of the uselessness of the hearings as they are currently being held. well, other than the people who’ve been listening to a lot of the hearings. if i learn anything interesting from making the phone calls tomorrow, i’ll post something here (i think this thread will be open until tomorrow night).