Posted on 03/18/2002 8:52:37 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) believes that the rule limiting each senator to five minutes when questioning witnesses prevents them from eliciting useful information.
“The setup as it is today, with the five-minute rule, is almost guaranteed not to be able to find out anything that someone doesn’t just come there wanting to tell you,” said Thompson, who played a key role as minority counsel during the Watergate hearings.
He is not alone. A growing number of senators have expressed frustration at their inability to pursue a line of questioning beyond five minutes, allowing witnesses to filibuster and otherwise evade the questions. The time limit presents an especially formidable obstacle when questioning witnesses on complex or controversial subjects.
It was not always thus. There was a time, before television, when senators routinely had their staffers conduct much of the questioning, with no time limit. As a staffer, Thompson himself became a celebrity because of his talent for asking penetrating questions. But now senators appear reluctant to relinquish the spotlight.
Thompson’s comments came in the wake of former Enron Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling’s appearance before the Senate Commerce Committee last month when Skilling avoided answering many senators’ questions because of the five-minute rule. Some observers thought that Skilling got the better of the Senate.
“What we’re trying to serve is an informing or exposing function, so you don’t necessarily have to be able to conduct a cross-examination the way you would in a courtroom,” Thompson said. “But the way it is now, it’s just an invitation to try to concentrate on a sound bite or two.”
While calling the five-minute rule “too limiting,” Thompson said it serves the purpose of allowing all senators on a panel to ask questions. “You’re either going to have effective cross-examination or you’re going to have maximum member input, but you can’t have both.”
Thompson said one possible solution to the problem would be a “half-way measure” that would allow staff or members extra time for interrogation, as Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) was granted at the end of Skilling’s testimony.
Asked whether committee counsel should do some of the questioning, as he did during the 1974 Watergate hearings, Thompson said, “I think that probably is about as good a compromise as you’re going to get. It still leaves a lot to be desired, especially for those who are trying to establish a point.”
Fitzgerald and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who were among the most aggressive interrogators of Skilling, also think the five-minute rule handcuffs senators.
Fitzgerald, who was general counsel for a bank holding company in Chicago before his election to the Senate, called the time limit a “big mistake.”
“I thought because of the five-minute format that it was worthless,” Fitzgerald said. “Skilling was assured of not having any appropriate follow-ups. … So I fault the format. I thought it was awful and it shouldn’t be repeated again, otherwise we’re just wasting everybody’s time.”
The committee’s “very poor arrangement” allowed Skilling to employ a strategy of running out the clock, Fitzgerald said. “Each senator only got five minutes, and Skilling would talk for four-and-a-half, and you couldn’t ask any follow-up questions,” he said.
Boxer concurred, saying, “I think a little longer would be good. Ten minutes would be great. It would give you a chance to make your point. Five minutes is kind of difficult.”
When Fitzgerald prevailed upon Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who chaired the hearing, to give him an extra 10 minutes at the end, Fitzgerald said he elicited several significant pieces of information that showed “a total breach and abrogation of [Skilling’s] fiduciary duties to the company as CEO.”
Nevertheless, Dorgan defended the committee’s questioning of Skilling. “I think all of the questions were asked; I just don’t think he provided any real answers,” he said.
While Dorgan agreed that extending the questioning period might be helpful, he said it wouldn’t have made any difference in this case.
“We did like four rounds [of questioning],” he said. “It might be better to have lengthier question periods. I don’t think it would have changed the hearing with respect to Mr. Skilling very much because he didn’t come prepared to offer any real substantive testimony.”
But Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), a trial lawyer, said hearings are limited in value because of the rule.
“From my experience, it’s very difficult to engage in a substantive conversation with a witness in five minutes, and you certainly can’t ask questions and follow-up questions,” he said. “I think the hearings are important, but I wish we could find a way to allow people more time to raise issues they want to raise.”
While some observers think more of the questioning should be turned over to committees’ lawyers, Edwards said he feels it would be better if chairmen used more discretion in enforcing the time limit.
“The senators who are the decisionmakers and the policymakers need to be able to ask questions,” he said. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a counsel who also asks questions on occasion, depending on the nature of the hearing, but, in general, I think it’s important for the people who are actually going to make the decisions to be able to ask questions.”
Fitzgerald and Boxer both agreed. “It’s our job to do the work and not to give the work to anybody else,” Boxer said.
Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), another of Skilling’s questioners, also defended senators’ rights to interrogate witnesses rather than turn over the responsibility to counsels.
“Most of the members of the Senate are lawyers themselves,” said Breaux, who is a lawyer. “It’s fine to have lawyers advise us, but I think the members have the responsibility of being informed enough to ask the questions ourselves. We did that and I think it was good.”
BINGO! We have a winner folks!
Perhaps these senators need to take notes on how O'Reilly interviews? I won't hold my breath. They are mostly blowhards who are desparate for TV facetime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.