by D. Cupples | The White House is whining about congressional oversight, claiming that staffers have had to hunt down and hand over a million pages of documents, which distracted staffers from other work. According to The Politico, a congressional staffer commented:
"The administration’s estimate of documents produced is about as accurate as their predictions about Iraq.... They should spend less time complaining and more time complying.”
Well said! Are the White House's complaints valid? Consider the following data from a November 2005 Boston Globe article:
White House Staffers gave 2 million pages just to the House Government Reform Committee back when Newt Gingrich waged jihad against Bill Clinton. Administration staff spent 55,000 hours responding to 300 congressional requests just from October 1996 - March 1998 (before the impeachment hearings). From 1997-2002 the Reform Committee alone issued 1,052 subpoenas to the Clinton Administration and the Democratic National Committee (while issuing only 11 subpoenas relating to Republican abuses).
A million pages isn't so bad, is it? The Bush Administration doesn't see it that way, because it got a virtual free ride from 1995-2006, while the committee charged with executive oversight was controlled by Republicans who seemed to avoid holding a Republican president accountable.
That all changed in January 2007, when Democrats took control of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, rolled up their sleeves, and started actually trying to uphold their Constitutional executive-oversight duties. It was like the teacher came back from bathroom break to find paper balls all over the classroom floor.
The current House Oversight Committee has a lot of catching up to do. The Bush Administration should feel lucky that it has had to give only one million pages to Congress (assuming that's an accurate estimate).
Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), who is hyper-diligent about performing executive-oversight duties, summed it up this way:
"'When Clinton was in office, there wasn't an issue too small to hold a hearing on and embarrass the Democrats.... Now, there isn't a scandal big enough to ignore." (Boston Globe)
He's not exaggerating. I've seen a few Oversight Committee hearings: while most Democratic members ask witnesses substantive questions, most Republicans pitch soft balls, defend witnesses, and criticize the Committee for even pursuing investigations. (See links at end of page.)
Perhaps it doesn't occur to them that they cannot know whether things are going well unless the Committee investigates. Perhaps they really don't want to know.
According to Boston Globe data, in 1993-94, the last time Dems controlled the House, they were diligent about executive oversight even though a Democrat (Clinton) was in office.
I don't mean to suggest that all Republicans are averse to oversight. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) actively investigated the U.S. Attorney firings this year. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-ID) has repeatedly investigated drug companies and the FDA. John McCain (R-AZ) investigated Indian gambling issues, which brought down Republican lobbyist-turned-prison-inmate Jack Abramoff [and congressman-turned-inmate Robert Ney (R-OH)].
In short, we taxpayers owe gratitude to Rep. Henry Waxman and those House Oversight Committee members who seriously try to root out waste, fraud and abuse -- despite insults from their oversight-averse colleagues.
See Memeorandum for other bloggers' reactions.
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* Oversight Hearing: Rice was Evasive, Republicans Oppose Probe
* Blackwater Hearing: Poor Media Coverage, Republicans Oppose Probe
* Oversight Hearing on State Dept. Inspector: Republicans Oppose Probe
* State Dept. Inspector Blocked Investigations?
* State Dept. Staff Threatened for Cooperating with Congress
* Have U.S. Officials Protected Blackwater?
* Justice Official Turned Blind Eye to Contractor Fraud?
* Interior Officials Allowed Oil Companies to Underpay Royalties
It appears Congress dosen't have anything else to do BUT conduct partisan investigations beyond the scope of what the average American cares about so I say "Blow Them All Out- Democrat & Republicans Alike AND Start ALL OVER!!!"
Posted by: Jim DeBellonia | December 07, 2007 at 02:43 PM
That an investigation targets the Executive Branch doesn't necessarily mean that it's partisan, and the legislative branch does have a duty to exercise oversight.
The Executive branch is the biggest part of our government, in terms of employees and dollars appropriated. Thus, more errors will occur there.
Some executive agencies have not been performing well: e.g., Interior Dept., Energy Dept., State Dept., Homeland Security Dept....
If Congress doesn't exercise oversight, how can we taxpayers see improvement and ultimately get better service for our money?
Posted by: D. Cupples | December 07, 2007 at 03:40 PM