It's easy to get distracted in our workaday lives and lose sight of the big picture.

For instance, Mike Allen of the Politico reports that the White House recently passed "an unusual landmark": the administration has produced 1 million documents to Congress since January. The mind can scarcely comprehend the horrors of such unbridled oversight.

The details of this "unusual landmark" are unclear. Characteristic of a White House that has successfully stonewalled a number of key Congressional investigations while still managing to complain about responding to inquiries, the provenance of that "1 million" number is unstated. (A Waxman aide "scoffed" at the number, Allen reports.) Presumably if you were to press for information as to where it had come from, it would prove an additional unreasonable burden. And as to whether that landmark (if it has been reached) is, in fact, "unusual," who knows? Certainly to a White House that suffered no oversight during its first six years, it is unusual.

Having staggered the mind with the "1 million" number, Allen quotes a "senior administration official" to drive home the real costs:

“There are a number of dry holes that got drilled,” a senior administration official said. “People don’t care about it. The public is saying: Gas is at $3 a gallon. Is there any energy bill? No.”

The official even made sport of the Democrats’ approach, calling it “purely reflexive.”

“People are having concerns with their mortgages,” the official said. “Is there a mortgage bill? No. We have a government to fund. Is there any appropriations bill? No.

“But, I’ve got a new subpoena for you today — and we’re going to hold somebody in contempt. Doesn’t that help you?”

The main effect, the official said, was a distraction for the staff and countless hours of work for the White House counsel’s office.

Accepting the undeniable logic of every new subpoena meaning one less sweeping piece of legislation, it staggers the mind to think of what the Democratic Congress could have accomplished these past 11 months if it had spent its time passing the administration's legislation instead of investigating it. Not only that, but there wouldn't have been the additional burden of having to replace officials forced to resign as the result of those investigations. Think how much more could get done!

Now, if only the press would lay off too, then they could really get some things accomplished.

In a blistering 14-page letter today (pdf), House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) charged that the inspector general for the State Department Howard Krongard has been actively impeding probes into waste and corruption in Iraq and elsewhere. The basic allegation, as Waxman simply puts it, is that "you believe your foremost mission is to support the Bush Administration, especially with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than act as an independent and objective check on waste, fraud, and abuse on behalf of U.S. taxpayers." In other words, Waxman is charging that he's a hack, and the worst kind, too -- one that can do real damage.

Waxman has a litany of examples of Krongards' alleged hackishness, but one is particularly colorful.

There have been allegations that the contractor First Kuwaiti used forced labor building the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. So Krongard looked into it.

Only he had a peculiar method, according to Waxman's investigation. First, he insisted on doing the report entirely by himself and shut out his staff. And instead of seeking out the source of the allegations, he allowed the contractor to choose the employees that he'd interview. He ultimately interviewed six employees.

Read more »

Karl Rove made sure that agency and department officials were busy, busy, busy come election time, The Washington Post reported this weekend. And now House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants to figure out just how busy.

Waxman sent out a request to 19 different agencies/departments today (take a deep breath: Departments of Justice, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, Labor, State, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration, General Services Administration, United States Agency for International Development, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy), all of which apparently took part in Rove's scheme to use agency officials to help vulnerable Republicans.

Read more »

Just in time for the NIE's assessment that the U.S. faces a "heightened threat environment," a House Oversight subcommittee hearing tomorrow will highlight the curious tale of the Wackenhut Corp. Wackenhut is one of the nation's largest private security companies, and over the last few years it's been awarded millions in government contracts to protect nuclear facilities, Army bases, transportation infrastructure, and much more. The trouble is that where Wackenhut goes, complaints of lax security often follow.

Wackenhut has the contract to secure the Army's Holston Ammunition Plant in Tennessee. Last year, guards at the plant told lawmakers that boaters were easily able to float into restricted areas at the riverfront facility, and that Wackenhut only bolstered patrols when it knew that Army inspectors were up for a visit. Wackenhut has contracts to secure 31 nuclear power plants around the country. Last year, the Project on Government Oversight reported that Wackenhut nearly got employees killed by not stopping a mock terrorism-response exercise at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility in time. Perhaps most egregiously, the Department of Homeland security opted last year not to renew Wackenhut's contract to protect DHS's Washington headquarters after guards told the AP about numerous security breaches -- including a botched anthrax scare. (Wackenhut security officials actually took the "suspicious white powder" into the office of Secretary Michael Chertoff and sprinkled it out of his window into the area below.)

Not the most union-friendly company on the planet, Wackenhut often blames its bad press on disgruntled employees. Making the feeling mutual, the Service Employees International Union keeps a website, EyeOnWackenhut.com, compiling the myriad complaints -- some legal, some in the court of public opinion -- made against Wackenhut.

Yet Wackenhut keeps landing lucrative contracts. Tomorrow, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) is holding a hearing of his House Oversight subcommittee to find out why that is. Along with a number of Energy and Homeland Security procurement officials and inspector-generals, a former Wackenhut guard at Homeland Security named Robin Smith will testify about the company's shaky standards of performance -- and how they don't appear to influence the government's willingness to give Wackenhut a pass. It doesn't seem that the company is sending anyone to refute the allegations, but expect a vigorous response from the Florida-based company all the same.

It's time for another round of "Which Office or Agency is the White House Politicizing Now?"

House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), having recently brought to light the politicization of the surgeon general's office, is shining a light on the nation's drug czar. The czar, John Walters, and his deputies traveled on the taxpayers' dime to 20 events with vulnerable Republican members of Congress in the months prior to the 2006 elections, according to a committee press release. Not only that, but several of the trips were "combined with the announcement of federal grants or actions that benefited the districts of the Republican members." If government officials were using government funds to help elect Republicans, that would be a violation of the Hatch Act.

You can guess who was behind all that GOP-boosting travel: Karl Rove. Waxman says that Rove's former top aide Sara Taylor was the point person, and so he wants her to testify before his committee. He's requested that she appear for a deposition July 24th and raises the possibility of a hearing on July 30th. Taylor, you'll remember, just testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week about the U.S. attorney firings.

Read more »

Things just aren't what they used to be.

Nowadays, hardly an arbitrary exertion of executive power goes by without examination. Fire eight U.S. attorneys at once, and Congress starts asking questions. Commute the sentence of your former aide who was convicted of lying to protect senior administration officials and within a week, there's a hearing. Even your off-the-record email system is exposed, so that now there might be a record of Karl Rove's communications.

The White House is not happy, as spokesman Scott Stanzel made clear during yesterday's press briefing. Clearly, the Democratic Congress is in some sort of oversight frenzy, cross-eyed and foaming at the mouth, issuing subpoenas every waking hour:

I would note that we do get a lot of inquiries from the Hill. They've launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews...And they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days -- so that's about six oversight hearings a day. And we've turned over 200,000 pages of documents as an administration.

It's just no fun being in power any more.

Of course, Democrats, with characteristic skepticism, question the White House's numbers:

Democrats were dubious of the figures but did not offer their own.

"His numbers are as faulty as the intelligence they used to make their case for war," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"In the last six years, all they've had is a rubber-stamp Congress. Since January, Democrats have demanded accountability, a change of course and transparency," Manley said.

Full transcript below.

Read more »

The Department of Transportation is citing "confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch" as the reason for hanging on to at least 53 documents the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wants to see.

The committee requested the documents for its investigation into whether DOT improperly lobbied Congress on behalf of the auto industry. DOT maintains that anti-lobbying measures do not apply in the alleged scheme because members of the agency contacted Congress directly. The measures only applies when an agency enlists citizens to lobby officials, lawyers for DOT argue.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) still wants a full look at the case. The situation emerged from California's request for an Environmental Protection Agency waiver that would allow it to heighten emissions standards in the state. When the deadline for EPA to make a decision neared, DOT employees contacted members of Congress about how the decision could affect the auto industry in their districts.

The Department of Transportation said in a letter earlier this week that anti-lobbying measures do not apply to its officers who contact members of Congress on behalf of the auto industry.

DOT announced this stance in a letter from the agency’s acting general counsel responding to the head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government’s request for information. The committee wants to hear more about an alleged plan to pressure members of Congress into persuading the Environmental Protection Agency to deny California a waiver allowing it to raise carbon emission standards.

DOT’s head lawyer Rosalind Knapp argued in her response that anti-lobbying law only applies when agencies call on private citizens to lobby Congress on their behalf. She also said that she advised several officials that it would not violate anti-lobbying provisions if they contacted members of Congress directly:

DOTs actions in no way violated anti-lobbying restrictions, as those provisions apply to and prohibit “grass roots” lobbying intended to encourage third parties, members of special interest groups, or the general public to contact members of Congreess or State legislatures in support of or opposition to a legistlative matter.

Read more »

Today the head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) told Lurita Doan, chief of the government’s procurement agency, that she ought to step down.

Doan was back in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today where Democrats wanted to know why she gave the Office of Special Counsel information that seemed to contradict what she first told the committee under oath in March.

The Office of Special Counsel questioned Doan over a possible violation of the Hatch Act about a month after she faced the House Oversight Committee. In a letter to the president released yesterday, Special Counsel Scott Bloch said his findings show that Doan should be punished to the fullest extent possible, which would mean being fired.

The Hatch Act violation stems from a comment she made to her employees about helping Republican congressional candidates. Doan made the comment, according to General Services Administration employees present, at a January 26 meeting at the GSA where Karl Rove’s deputy Scott Jennings put on a slideshow showing key House and Senate races coming up in the 2008 election cycle.

In March, Doan had little memory of the meeting, but when she spoke with the Office of Special Counsel she recalled many more details. She also made disparaging comments about GSA employees who cooperated in the investigation, calling them poor performers. She also implied that she’d be sure they would not receive promotions or bonuses in the future.

Another proud moment in government brought to you by the Bush administration: the Department of Transportation has been accused of working as an auto lobby.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who heads the Committee on on Oversight and Government Reform, sent DOT Secretary Mary E. Peters a letter today requesting more information on a voicemail message received by a member of Congress that implicates the agency in a lobbying effort. The message left by Heideh Shahmoradi, an aide at the Transportation Department, urges the unnamed official to take a stand on California’s move to enforce tougher carbon emission standards because “this would greatly impact the auto facilities” in the member’s district.

Waxman wants Shahmoradi deposed for the committee and copies of all documentation related to the incident. He wrote:

It is not an appropriate use of federal resources to lobby members of Congress to oppose state efforts to protect the environment. It is especially problematic on an issue that is pending for decision before the Administration and that is supposed to be decided based on an independent assessment of the merits. At the very least, Ms. Shamoradi's call suggests the presence of an improper hidden agenda.

Waxman’s letter, which includes a full transcript of the voicemail message, is available here.

The Department of Justice released more documents this evening. We are raking through them now. As has worked well before, we set up a thread here for readers to help us spot interesting pieces. When you post, please identify what you find by document dump set number and then page number. We have two sets, so an item from the first set on page 4 would read "1:4". The first set is here . The second set is here. Happy hunting!

Bradley Schlozman has been criticized for bringing voter fraud charges against several ACORN registration organizers just days before a close election in 2006. The decision appears to be in conflict with Department of Justice policy. Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pointed out the apparent conflict to Schlozman today during his testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on the politicization of the agency.

Leahy became openly angered during his questioning of Schlozman when the witness tried to skirt the topic. Schlozman claimed he had clearance from his superiors at the Department of Justice to bring the charges. He also said that he did not think the charges would have an affect on the pending election. Leahy raised his voice and sharpened his tone, not his typical persona.

Here is video of the Leahy-Schlozman tussle:

Feinstein also pressed Schlozman on his decision to bring the criminal indictments right before the election. She was not thrilled with his answer either. Her video is on the way.

Late Update: Here's Feinstein.

We're reporting live from the Senate Judiciary's latest hearing on the politicization of the Department of Justice. The first witness will be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' first appointed U.S. Attorney, Bradley Schlozman, of the Western District of Missouri. The second witness we'll hear from is Todd Graves, the U.S. Attorney that was ousted to make room for Schlozman.

Schlozman is being sworn in. More coverage is on the way. You can also follow along with video here.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) still wants to know where the Department of Justice sets the bar for "wrongdoing" or "improper" conduct.

Today, Whitehouse asked the Justice Department's oversight arm, the Office of the Inspector General, to look into how the agency defines improper behavior. When U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in April, Gonzales explained that actions become improper when they have an adverse affect on a particular case. Whitehouse was and is appalled.

“The notion that the definition of impropriety for DOJ employees should be set so low as to more or less mirror the definition of criminal obstruction of justice is disturbing,” Whitehouse wrote in a letter to Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine. “Indeed, it implies that it would be perfectly appropriate to dismiss a U.S. Attorney because he or she did not, for example, act in a sufficiently partisan manner, although without regard to a particular case.”

Check out the volleying during Gonzales' Senate testimony:

Congress and the administration keep getting closer and closer to the edge. As part of the U.S. attorney firings investigation, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) has threatened to subpoena Karl Rove and other White House officials, a subpoena the White House will certainly fight. And in the House, House reform committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has subpoenaed Condoleezza Rice to testify next month; Rice has said she won’t comply.

So what happens when they get to the edge? Will we see top officials in cuffs soon?

The short answer: no, but a subpoena still gets results.

Former general counsel to the House Charles Tiefer explained that these face-offs never culminate in court.

"In theory, what happens is, after the House, or the Senate, goes through a certain process, [the case] is kicked over to a prosecutor," Tiefer said. But to think that will actually happen "is a naive way" of looking at Congressional investigations.

No top government official has ever been indicted for failing to respond to a Congressional subpoena. Tiefer, who signed off on more Congressional subpoenas than anyone else while counsel to the House from 1984 to 1996, explained that these investigations mount pressure to achieve results.

When asked if a Congressional subpoena has teeth he asked his own question: “Does a vise have teeth?” Well, no, but, “you could crack stones in a vise.”

The investigation process ramps up political pressure with letters, media outreach, subpoenas and contempt until one side cracks. The more bipartisan support an investigation has, the heavier each move weighs. The more the public supports the opposing branch, the more likely a committee will be to back down.

Usually a negotiated agreement is reached before the investigation hits a serious phase.

Read more »

Here's the latest volley in the ongoing battle between Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Waxman, the chairman of the House committee on oversight, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice today to complain that State Department officials had attempted to prevent a nuclear weapons anaylst at the department from speaking with his staff. This comes after Waxman's committee issued a subpoena last week for Rice's testimony on how she dealt with claims before the war that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. Rice has said that she won't comply with the subpoena.

Waxman said that when his staff sought to meet with Simon Dodge, a nuclear weapons analyst at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, a State Department official called and objected. According to Waxman, the official "informed Committee staff that you [Rice] were prohibiting Mr. Dodge from meeting with Committee investigators. This official claimed that allowing Mr. Dodge to speak with Committee staff would be 'inappropriate' because the Committee voted to issue a subpoena to compel your attendance at a hearing on your knowledge of the fabricated evidence."

Waxman wants to speak to Dodge because he raised alarms about the Niger evidence two weeks before President Bush cited it in his State of the Union address in 2003.

Waxman said he was giving Rice the benefit of the doubt:

I assume that your legislative staff was acting without your authorization in this matter. It would be a matter of great concern - as well as an obvious conflict of interest - if vou had directed your staff to impede a congressional investigation into matter that may implicate your conduct as National Security Advisor.

Waxman informed Rice that the committee would be interviewing Dodge next week.

And he also requested several documents from Rice "relating to the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."

FromCQ:

The Democratic-run House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on today authorized subpoenas for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice....

Waxman has been trying to get Rice to testify about claims Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium, a vital element for nuclear weaponry, in the buildup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. The committee voted 21-10 to authorize him to issue a subpoena to Rice.

Update/Correction: This post originally incorrectly stated that the panel had issued the subpoena.

Here's the latest instance of what is becoming a flourishing genre in the new Congress: the spurned chairman letter. It comes when oversight efforts are met with deafening silence from the administration.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice such a letter (pdf) today. Last month, Waxman wrote Rice, inviting her to an April 18 hearing on the Niger forgeries and the infamous sixteen words, and asking a list of questions about what she knew about the documents and how they got into the State of the Union address. What he got in return was a mostly irrelevant letter from one of Rice's subordinates forwarding previous correspondence that answered none of his questions. He's not happy and is pressing again for answers.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) delivered one of the classics of the genre last week, berating Alberto Gonzales for his silence in response to repeated requests for information over the past several months.

The administration's strategy, if indeed it is one, seems short-sighted. It's worked for the past six years. But the Dems are in charge now -- and anger and subpoena-power is a dangerous mix.

How strained are resources in Iraq? So strained that the State Department can't afford for three auditors to make a three month visit.

The State Department recently turned down a request for three congressional auditors to make a three-month stay in Baghdad, saying that having them around for that long would be "a serious challenge to mission resources."

In response, 22 Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), have called on Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to make room. "American taxpayers are currently being asked to spend approximately $3,420 every second and $280 million per day in Iraq," reads a letter to Rice sent today. "It is imperative that GAO be given the access it needs to serve as the eyes and ears of the United States Congress...."

But the burden of having those three auditors around would seem almost insurmountable... or at least that's the impression a State Department official gave in a letter to Harkin last week:

"each of [the auditors] would require lodging, extensive support services, security, computers, and other administrative support, as well as the attention of our staff in Baghdad in responding to their requests and inquiries."

You can read the entire letter here. The State Department turned down the GAO's request for a three-month stay, agreeing only to a two-week visit -- although the official pointed out that even that "will place considerable burden on Embassy staff and resources."

In the letter sent to Sec. Rice today, the Democrats didn't buy that argument, asking instead that the State Department make room for a six-month stay for the auditors.

From Bob Novak's column today:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has indicated he is too busy to answer letters from Democratic congressional leaders about his firing seven U.S. attorneys involved in probes of public corruption, though a lower-level Justice Department official rejected their proposals.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, House Democratic Caucus chairman, had written Gonzales two letters suggesting that he name Carol Lam, fired as U.S. attorney in San Diego, as an outside counsel to continue her pursuit of the Duke Cunningham case. Asked by Melissa Charbonneau of the Christian Broadcasting Network about this column’s report that Gonzales did not respond, Gonzales said: “I think that the American people lose if I spend all my time worrying about congressional requests for information, if I spend all my time responding to subpoenas.”

Richard A. Hertling, the acting Justice Department lobbyist, responded Wednesday, 22 days after Emanuel’s letter. He contended “the Justice Department would not ever seek the resignation of a U.S. attorney if doing so would jeopardize a public corruption case” and rejected naming Lam as a special prosecutor.

This ought to be good. Senate Judicary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) have written Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to ask what power they think Congress has to restrict the waging of war.

The request comes as Sen. Russ Feinfold (D-WI) holds a hearing today called "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War." A number of Democrats, like Feingold, have urged that the Democrats use the power of the purse to restrict Bush's troop increase in Iraq.

"What constitutional authority do you recognize resides with the Congress with respect to war?" the letter asks. "How do you believe Congress can exercise its authorities? What limits to you believe exist on those authorities? We would appreciate your prompt reply and legal analysis."

A couple of weeks ago, President Bush, in response to a question of whether he had "the authority to put the [21,000 extra] troops in [Iraq] no matter what the Congress wants to do," answered, "In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we're going forward."

We'll see if the administration sticks to that line.

We've posted Leahy's full statement on this issue below.

Read more »

The New York Times gives the rundown on the search for White House counsel Harriet Myers' successor:

Republicans said Friday in interviews that the White House was now, in essence, seeking a politically savvy outsider with ties throughout the capital and in Congress who might be called upon to become something of a public figure in potentially high-profile fights.

“They need somebody who can sit down face-to-face with an ornery committee chairman and work out a conflict over an oversight request,” said Bradford A. Berenson, a former associate counsel for Mr. Bush during his first term. “The job will require a certain minimum level of stature and a minimum level of political experience.”

Several Republicans, including some former administration officials, said the new White House counsel would also need the stature to counterbalance David S. Addington, the powerful chief of staff of Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Addington has tended to argue against cooperating with Congressional requests for classified information, a position that may require some softening, or at least more diplomacy, in the 110th Congress.

The White House is, in some respects, seeking a figure who is the mirror opposite of Ms. Miers, who has not shown a high level of comfort being a public figure....

This search is in tandem, of course, with the White House's wider effort to beef up their legal ranks in preparation for the coming investigations.

From The Hill:

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has created a new subcommittee that will tackle decisions made by the Bush administration regarding which government records should be made available to the public.

Well, he's got a lot of un-disappearing to do. Via Tapped.