To win in 2020, Democrats in Congress should legislate as much as they investigate

The House of Representatives has become a den of inquiry. To be sure, the power to investigate is implied in the grant of authority given to Congress under the Constitution, and the legislative branch has been at it for a long time. After Gen. Arthur St. Clair led a a force of more than 1,000 American soldiers into an ambush on the Wabash River that had been laid by the Indians of the Northwest confederation in 1791, the House held its first set of hearings into the conduct of the executive branch of government.

Since then, Congress has used its investigative powers to examine everything from war profiteering to the sinking of the Titanic and the attack on American diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. But as newsworthy and dramatic as investigations are, a too great emphasis on them poses dangers for those who investigate because the House has other important duties to attend to.

Read more commentary:

Trying to impeach Trump could bolster his base: Today's talker

Mueller report: A corrupt, unpatriotic president, a stark impeachment choice for Democrats

Republicans owe it to Ronald Reagan to stand up to Donald Trump: Former aide

Investigations are only a third of Congress’ responsibilities. It must also legislate and exercise routine oversight of the operations of the executive branch. These days, however, the House under the Democratic majority elected in 2018 has devoted an unusual amount of time and energy into investigating the Trump administration. If anything, the release of the report of special counsel Robert Mueller has accelerated the passion to probe to the point where there is a danger that other constitutional duties are disappearing from the radar.

Apart from the obvious delight in putting President Donald Trump under the investigative magnifying glass, there are two reasons why so many committee chairmen want to get into the act. The first is that investigations by the House require no action on the part of any other component of the federal government. Investigations require neither action by the Senate nor a presidential signature. Theoretically, any committee can hold investigative hearings on matters within its jurisdiction, but the Judiciary and Intelligence committees and, of course, the Committee on Oversight and Reform have taken the lead.

Pelosi's circus for progressives

The second reason has to do with the guarded manner in which House Democrats have approached the question of impeachment. There have been calls from Democrats for the House to hold impeachment hearings even before the party won the majority.

Rep. Al Green of Texas was calling for Trump’s impeachment as early as December 2017 and has issued subsequent calls.

Early this year, newly elected Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan also introduced a resolution of impeachment, and there is considerable zeal for impeaching Trump in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

But Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is cool to the idea, has needed to placate the progressives. If she won’t deliver bread they crave, she has needed to provide circuses. Those are the investigate hearings.

It’s not that the investigations are unimportant or unwarranted. There is abundant material in the recently issued Mueller report to provide fodder for endless inquiries into questionable actions by President Trump and those like Attorney General William Barr who work for him.

Even so, the 116th Congress, the first under the control of the Democrats since 2011, needs to deliver to the voters something more than investigations before its members face the voters in 2020. These hearings are only an appetizer. The House needs a main course. It needs to legislate and make sure the public is aware that legislation is in the works.

Have something real for voters

Ultimately, the Democrats must present to their constituents in 2020 something more tangible than transcripts of hearings, and for these they will need the cooperation of the Senate and the president. Accordingly, bills they write need to have bipartisan appeal.

Bills to control the rising cost of insulin have been the subject of hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Committee on Education and Labor is close to a vote to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. If passed, it would present the GOP majority in the Senate with a tough vote.

Neither of these areas is intrinsically partisan, and if the gains made by the Democrats in the midterm elections are to be sustained, these new members need bills that can become law. But even if these bills stall in the Senate or are vetoed by Trump, the Democrats can rightly claim that they made the effort.

House Democrats should not repeat the mistake of the Senate Democrats in 2014 who were so determined to protect their members from politically tough votes that they left their candidates with little to show for the time they had spent in Washington, and it cost them the majority.

Certainly, the president’s dangerous brushes with obstruction of justice have to be examined, but the mantra of the House Democrats can’t simply be: Investigations are good; more investigations are better; and too many investigations are just right.

Ross K. Baker is a distinguished professor of political science at Rutgers University and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @Rosbake1

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: To win in 2020, Democrats in Congress should legislate as much as they investigate