[whyenot]

cynic: Congress' mandate is to investigate anything that will get votes, or campaign funds.

Wikipedia: Investigative hearings share some of the characteristics of legislative and oversight hearings. The difference lies in Congress’s stated determination to investigate, usually when there is a suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of public officials acting in their official capacity, or private citizens whose activities suggest the need for a legislative remedy. Congress’s authority to investigate is broad and it has exercised this authority since the earliest days of the republic. Its most famous inquiries are benchmarks in American history: Credit Mobilier, Teapot Dome, Army-McCarthy, Watergate, and Iran-Contra. Investigative hearings often lead to legislation to address the problems uncovered. Judicial activities in the same area of Congress’s investigation may precede, run simultaneously with, or follow such inquiries.

It's not a recent phenomenon at all. For example, the Crédit Mobilier hearings were in 1872.

[zzzmarcus]

Thanks for the answer. The difference is that the scandals in the Wikipedia article all directly involve government:

Credit Mobilier: "The distribution of Crédit Mobilier stocks by Congressman Oakes Ames along with cash bribes to congressmen"

Teapot Dome: "control of U.S. Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming and at Elk Hills and Buena Vista in California, were transferred from the U.S. Navy Department to the Department of the Interior"

And Army-McCarthy, Watergate and Iran-Contra are all obviously directly tied to the government.

In those cases it makes sense for Congress to get involved. It's when Congress start to investigate "private citizens whose activities suggest the needs for legislative remedy" that I get concerned. That type of broad power apparently gives them free-reign to investigate anything they don't like.

It seems to me that in the past (15 or 20+ years ago) Congress didn't get involved in non-government related "scandals" like Toyota and college football, I'd be interested if anyone has examples to the contrary.

[whyenot]

"Baseball Probe Begins Tomorrow" - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 29, 1951.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DDAbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=d...

There are lots of other examples if you search newspaper archives using Google News. I encourage you to go look for yourself.

[evgen]

Seeing as how the government is in charge of setting the safety standards for the nations interstate highways and is responsible (via the NHTSA) for regulating the safety of cars on the road I am wondering how in the world you would not think this is the sort of thing Congress should investigate? If you are looking for a specific justification, examine the commerce clause of the us constitution.