Without fear of being considered partisan, it is fair to say that the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton has been the most investigated administration in the history of the nation. Questions about the ethical nature of President Clinton were raised during the 1992 campaign and barely a week had elapsed following the 1993 inauguration before some Members of Congress began to question his actions. 

The word "gate" has been used to describe nearly every presidential scandal since Watergate, but compared to Watergate, subsequent investigative hearings have been seen as comparatively unsuccessful in large part because of the absence of a "smoking gun." This has been especially true during the Clinton era as the new Republican Congress has held countless investigations, but few of these have produced meaningful results. More often, however, it is the less-publicized hearing that has the largest impact on the administration of government. Though they rate little press attention, routine investigative hearings often result in a dramatically different level of service provided by the federal government. 

The Era of Clinton Scandals 

Throughout the summer of 1998, hardly a day went by without newspaper headlines screaming over one presidential scandal after another. Presidential aides lined up outside the offices of a Washington grand jury, and congressional committees hired additional investigative staff. By fall, talk of impeachment filled the air. 

Following the 1994 elections, when Republicans claimed control over Congress for the first time in forty years, investigations of the Clinton administration began to mount. While it is fair to say that many of these investigations were partisan in design, it is also fair to argue that such scrutiny was invited. Throughout the 1992 campaign, then candidate Bill Clinton made frequent statements attacking the "sleaze" of the Reagan-Bush years.¹ These attacks were echoed in even harsher tones by then Senator Al Gore. The Democrat candidates also decried existing ethical standards as inadequate. The guarantee by candidate Clinton to maintain the most ethical administration in history² all but invited the press and Republicans to ensure that this bold promise was kept. 

The first days of the Clinton administration raised substantial questions as to whether the ethical promises of the new president would be kept. First, the president issued a new executive order toughening the post-employment restrictions on political appointees, but Republicans challenged these as merely public relations that would do nothing to control behavior while in office. Second, the president created a Health Care Task Force to be chaired by the first lady and staffed by individuals with substantial investments in health care related firms. As will be discussed below, this task force was packed with representatives of interest groups and held meetings outside the scope of government in the sunshine laws. Finally, long-time, career employees of the White House Travel Office were summarily fired under clouds of fraud and mismanagement and the travel office business was, for a time, given to a friend of the president who had a personal and financial interest in assuming the new business. 

In the years since, one scandal has followed another. Since September 1994, Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz has been investigating whether then Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy improperly accepted gifts from, and took official action in favor of, companies regulated by his department. Since May 1995, Independent Counsel David Barrett has been investigating whether then Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros made materially false statements to FBI and other federal officials during the nomination and appointment process by not being truthful about his payments to a former intimate. And, until Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was tragically killed in a plane crash, Independent Counsel Daniel Pearson was investigating allegations that Brown falsified his financial disclosure statements and illegally accepted payments from his former businesses. 

Today, independent counsels have been appointed to investigate alleged false statements made to Congress by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and alleged corruption by Labor Secretary Alexis M. Herman. Yet another independent counsel is being considered by Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate campaign fund-raising practices by the Clinton/Gore presidential campaign in 1996. 

Many other scandals have caused headlines during the past several years. These include: the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, the original Whitewater land deal, sexual harassment allegations by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones, the IRS audit of UltrAir and the prosecution of Billy Dale (later acquitted) following the Travel Office firings, AFL-CIO contributions to the Clinton campaign in violation of the Supreme Court's Beck decision, the use of White House guest bedrooms by political contributors, presidential meetings with convicted drug dealers, countless examples of memory loss by otherwise brilliant White House officials during congressional hearings, and the first lady's gain of $100,000 off a $1,000 commodity investment in the 1980s. 

The Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1995 and immediately began to hold high profile hearings. During the 104th Congress, the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, which had primary jurisdiction to keep check on the executive branch, met 313 days.³ The same committee, during the Democrat controlled 103rd Congress, met for only 195 days.⁴ 

The Branch Davidians 

One of the first investigations in 1995, in which this author participated, was a series of oversight hearings into the activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and the Department of Defense toward the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.⁵ Encompassing thirteen days of testimony, these hearings were the most comprehensive oversight by Congress of the executive branch in recent years. 

To most observers, the Republicans had their hats handed to them by the more experienced Democrats. Everything that could go wrong did. The Clinton administration, namely the Treasury and Justice Departments, were highly successful in their efforts to deny Congress access to relevant material. In many cases, much needed documents were not provided to Congress until after the hearings were held on those given subjects. 

The media, who were all too pleased to cover this first effort at Republican congressional oversight, provided at least equal time to Republicans. Unfortunately, few Republicans demonstrated that they were ready to play on the national stage. Subcommittee co-chairman 

Bill Zeliff (R-N.H.) went as far as to suggest that President Clinton could be impeached over the Waco fiasco. The Democrats, aided by the media, were quick to use that remark as evidence that the Republicans were motivated merely by political considerations. 

The Democrats, on the other hand, were experts at using the media to explain their story to the public. The Democrat subcommittee members were led by Congressman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) who is well known and respected for his media savvy. Other experienced Democrats, who had all previously chaired congressional subcommittees, included Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Robert Wise (D-W.V.), and Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). Congressman Schumer virtually stole one hearing by raising above his head an AK-47 seized from the Branch Davidians. The Republicans were denied access to these same weapons by Attorney General Janet Reno. 

Finally, one of the few times the hearings ran into the evening and was, therefore, granted a nationwide prime time television audience, the Democrats had astutely scheduled their star witness, a young teenager who testified that she was repeatedly raped and abused by David Koresh. Although the Republicans never sought to defend the actions of Koresh, the viewing public had all reason to believe that they were standing up for the rights of the Branch Davidians. 

Madison Savings and Loan 

After having their calls for hearings over the Whitewater matter rejected by Democrats, the newly empowered Republicans were quick to organize hearings in both the House and Senate banking committees.⁶ In early January 1995, the Senate committee requested documents from the Resolution Trust Corporation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision. The Senate committee's investigation and hearings focused, in particular, on the role Paula Casey and Webster Hubbell may have played in the Justice Department's handling of the first RTC criminal referral, which was sent to Casey's predecessor in September 1992, as well as the second set of nine referrals, which were sent to Justice in October 1993. 

By February of that year, the White House established a team of four or more lawyers within the White House Counsel's office to defend the administration before Congress and to assist in cooperating, as necessary, with requests from the independent counsel. In addition, the White House appointed a spokesman devoted solely to Whitewater. 

On July 18, 1995 the Senate special committee, chaired by Senator Al D'Amato (R-N.Y.) and the House Banking Committee, now chaired by Congressman James Leach (R-Iowa), began their hearings. In the consecutive months, both committees held dozens of hearings and issued numerous subpoenas on all aspects of the Whitewater scandal. As with Waco, many of these hearings were covered live on television. 

Ignoring, for the purposes of this essay, the detailed allegations surrounding the Whitewater scandal and the numerous convictions obtained by the independent counsel, the Republican Whitewater hearings were widely seen as a failure. The hearings were discontinued later in the year. Congressman Leach, watching the implosion of the Senate hearings, limited his oversight and quietly disappeared. 

Campaign Finance 

Shortly before the 1996 presidential election, news reports began to surface calling into question the fund-raising practices of the Clinton/Gore campaign committee. Stories were told of high level donors sleeping overnight in the Lincoln bedroom or receiving appointments to various boards and commissions. More serious international concerns were raised about foreign contributions being solicited and received from Chinese government and business leaders. 

Once again, the Republican-controlled Congress held oversight hearings.⁷ This investigation was delegated to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Like the hearings of the past, the media coverage was extensive. The chairman, Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), had served as minority chief counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee. Because of his prior career in Hollywood and the stately roles he played there, he was seen as a type-casted congressional investigator. 

In his opening statement, Senator Thompson announced that the hearings would prove Chinese links to domestic political contributions. Like previous hearings, however, the Democrats were quick to use this statement to charge the Republicans with partisan posturing, and the witnesses failed to demonstrate any direct evidence. Countless witnesses testified at dozens of hearings which dragged on for days with little progress. By the end of the hearings, Senator Thompson was seen as failing in his effort to tie the White House to foreign campaign contributions. Ironically, months after the Thompson hearings concluded, new evidence arose which supported Senator Thompson's contention. 

Lessons Learned 

This quick review of well publicized Republican hearings would suggest that the Republicans have been less than successful in efforts to oversee the activities of the president. Republican efforts are compared unfavorably to earlier hearings conducted by Democrat chairmen like John Dingell, Jack Brooks, and Dan Rostenkowski. Yet, it is difficult to point to many hearings that were any more successful than recent Republican hearings. While most commentators refer to Watergate as the ultimate congressional investigation, the Democrat-run hearings into the Iran-Contra scandal are largely seen as a failure. This notwithstanding, there are still a number of lessons that can be learned from the high profile hearings conducted during the last several years. 

(1)  Forty years of single party control of Congress meant the opposition party had little experience in running Congress and conducting effective oversight. This was proven in the frequent mismanagement of the House and Senate floor schedules by the newly minted congressional leadership in 1995. This lack of experience was even more evident in the conduct of controversial oversight. More experience should mean more productive hearings. 

(2)  Oversight must be conducted in a bipartisan fashion. At first blush, this would seem to suggest that the congressional majority must commit itself to an obviously fair process. While this is true, it is equally important that the congressional minority commit itself to a process of open-minded fact finding. 

(3)  Committees learned too late that a media strategy must be devised before any hearing begins and to stick to it. Moreover, the media cannot be expected to tell the story for the committee unless the members lay out in detail what the story is. By the end of the Waco hearings, the staff learned that by mid-day a summary of that day's hearing should have been distributed to the media to meet their deadlines. Reporters may be astute enough to understand the story as presented by witnesses, but it should be the members, through opening statements and summaries directly handed to the press, that most reporters rely on. 

(4)  Committees should demand access to documents, witnesses and other information before the commencement of hearings. This demand should be enforced through the issuance of a subpoena if necessary. If the minority does not cooperate, the hearing should be postponed and the minority should be publicly criticized for politicizing the investigation. The Democrat minority, when they held the majority position in Congress, gave no quarter when demanding access to documents during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Only political hypocrisy would allow them to argue now that Congress should not be given full access to executive branch information. 

(5)  Members of the House and Senate should more fully cooperate among themselves. This is particularly true among the minority members of the House who have relatively little authority to conduct investigations or compel information and need the power of the Senate to gain the White House's attention. All senators, however, enjoy powerful prerogatives, such as placing holds on nominations, which can force the president to supply information or take action if he wants the hold to be lifted and the nominee approved. 

(6)  Members of investigating committees should cooperate with their committee leadership when drafting questions to be asked during oversight hearings. Many congressional committees have restrictive rules regarding the amount of time allowed for individual members to ask questions, which is usually limited to five minutes. Any detailed line of questioning often requires more than a single five minute round, especially when witnesses become talkative as a means to run out the clock. The committee leadership could pass out suggested questions to members which follow a pattern established to draw out relevant evidence. 

(7)  All congressional committees should make more productive use of government oversight organizations, such as the General Accounting Office and offices of the Inspectors General. Countless examples of waste, fraud, and abuse are uncovered by the auditing bodies although few of their reports are ever read. 

(8)  Finally, a member's staff should not be permitted to question witnesses. This practice is followed more frequently in the Senate than the House. While it may allow a more reasoned pattern of questioning, it allows the members of the investigating committee to become lazy and assume that the staff is monitoring the entire investigation. Ultimately, the members must be prepared to debate the findings of the investigation, and this is difficult if they are not fully versed in its progress. 

Most Oversight Is Productive 

Readers, however, should not assume that oversight is not constructive or that Republican oversight has been ineffective. Countless examples can be provided that demonstrate the positive impact congressional oversight has had on the administration of government, but they gain little public recognition because they are largely ignored by the press. These investigative hearings lead to substantial reforms in government regulations or decisions to spend or stop spending federal tax dollars on a particular program. The threat of hearings has forced the White House to take specific actions and, often, the president will announce a major initiative on the eve of a congressional hearing so that he can later claim credit for pursuing the cause. 

Two examples of this type of oversight include the Year 2000 Computer Problem and investigations into the make-up of the president's Health Care Task Force. 

Soon after the Health Care Task Force was created, Congressman William F. Clinger (R-Penn.) charged in a letter to the president that the task force violated the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.⁸ He asserted that the task force was an advisory committee under the statute because the first lady, who chaired the group, is not a "full time officer or employee" of the federal government. The group violated the law, Congressman Clinger alleged, when it held a closed meeting on January 25, 1993 without notice to the public. The White House later responded that it did not agree with the congressman's reading of the law and that the meetings would not be made public. 

Congressman Clinger, although a member of the House Government Operations Committee's minority, continued to draw public attention to the make-up of the task force, the costs associated with its meetings, and the role of special interest groups in drafting the president's health care reform proposals. He later requested a General Accounting Office audit of the task force's operating expenses. The Clinton administration claimed task force costs would be less than $100,000. The GAO audit, however, placed the total cost at $13.8 million. Eventual release of task force records demonstrated that thousands of individuals, representing special interest groups, were allowed to influence the president's final legislative proposal. 

Because of the efforts begun by Congressman Clinger, the American public and later Congress were able to more fully analyze the provisions of the president's health care proposal. That bill was later defeated when the 103rd Congress found that it was far too complex and would mainly benefit special interest groups. The defeat of the health care proposal attracted considerable public attention. Conversely, the oversight investigation conducted by congressional Republicans drew little notice. 

The Year 2000 Computer Problem, now commonly called Y2K, was first reviewed by Congressman Steve Horn (R-Calif.) as early as April 16, 1996. The problem, without getting into too much detail, is that most computers will read the year 2000 as 1900 and fail to operate properly. Air traffic control, banks, and even checkout lines at local grocery stores could come to a stop. The cost to the federal government will be enormous and some economists predict an economic depression if steps are not taken to correct the problem before January 1, 2000. 

To anyone but a computer expert, this problem may sound a bit dull. Indeed, Congressman Horn found that only a few people cared enough to attend his early hearings on the issue. Moreover, he found that the Clinton administration was ill-prepared to deal with the crisis. A former university professor and president, Congressman Horn gave nearly every government agency a failing grade in a report card he issued on government compliance with the Y2K problem. Over time, and countless hearings, the Clinton administration began to respond to increased congressional concern. Finally, by summer of 1998, President Clinton spoke to the issue during a weekly radio address. 

Many government agencies are still struggling with efforts to fix the computer problem, but all agencies are now working on a solution. Without congressional oversight, it seems doubtful the issue would have been addressed as appropriately. 

Conclusions 

The Republican majority has struggled to meet successfully its objectives when conducting high profile congressional investigations. Many of these investigations have resulted in an embarrassment to the individual members of the investigating committees and helped build upon the public's cynicism toward Congress. Several lessons have been learned from those early efforts, and recent signs suggest that future investigations may be better conducted than were their predecessors. 

The great bulk of congressional oversight, however, is conducted out of the public's eye. Nearly every day that Congress is in session, oversight hearings are held which go unnoticed by the general public. These hearings go a long way to shape public policy as government agencies and the president often take steps to avoid embarrassment by even the least-noticed oversight panel. In final analysis, oversight and investigations under the Republican Congress may not have met media expectations but, as with the Democrat-led hearings before them, they continue to help shape a more productive government. 
 

Kevin Sabo is a Washington, D.C. attorney and former General Counsel of both the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the U.S. Senate. 

1. See Bill Clinton, Putting People First: How We Can All Change America (New York: Times Books,1992). 

2. Ball, "Clinton Cracks Whip on Ethics," San Diego Union, A1 (13 Nov. 1992). 

3. U.S. House of Representatives, Activities of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 104th Cong.,1995-1996, H.Rept. 104-874. 

4. U.S. House of Representatives, Activities of the House Committee on Government Operations, 103d Cong.,1993-1994, H.Rept. 103-884. 

5. House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Investigation Into the Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Toward the Branch Davidians, 13th Report, prepared in conjunction with the House Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 2d sess., 2 Aug. 1996., H.Rept. 104-749. 

6. Senate Special Committee, Minority Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, 104th Cong., 2d sess., 18 June 1996, S. Rept. 104-280. 

7. Senate Committee on Government Affairs, Final Report of the Investigation of Illegal or Improper Activities in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns together with Additional and Minority Views, 105th Cong., 2d sess., 10 Mar. 1998, S. Rept. 105-167. 

8. Letter from William F. Clinger, Jr., to Honorable William J. Clinton, 1 Feb. 1993. Clinger at the time was ranking member of the House Committee on Government Operations, which had oversight jurisdiction over government sunshine laws.