|
 t's
a headline to warm a Democrat's heart: A Justice Department task
force been formed to conduct a criminal investigation of a company
that was one of George W. Bush's biggest political supporters. The
probe of the collapse of Enron might well warm Democratic hearts
for months to come; the investigation will undoubtedly go on for
a long time, and some well-informed observers suspect it will find
evidence of misconduct — perhaps of the prosecutable kind,
perhaps not — inside the giant energy corporation. And even
though there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on the part of anyone
in the administration, Democrats will remind the public on a daily
basis that the head of Enron, Kenneth Lay, is a big, big George
W. Bush booster, as are other top company executives.
Even as the
Justice Department investigation gets underway, a single congressman,
operating without the authority of any committee, has already made
a few headlines from the Enron story. Last month, California Democratic
Rep. Henry Waxman, ranking minority member on the House Government
Reform Committee, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney asking
about meetings between representatives of Enron and members of Cheney's
National Energy Policy Development Group. In particular, Waxman
wanted to know whether the Enron representatives shared "information
about [the company's] precarious financial position."
Writing back
last Friday, Cheney counsel David Addington revealed, for the first
time, that there were five meetings last year between Enron representatives
and policy group staff members. In addition, there was one face-to-face
meeting between Cheney and Lay (which Cheney discussed in a television
interview last May).
Three of the
staff meetings occurred while Cheney's group was actually working
on the administration's energy policy statement. According to Addington,
two meetings, one in February 2001 and the other in March, involved
only Enron staffers. The third meeting, in April, involved about
two dozen people from several utilities, including Enron. In addition,
in August 2001, after the release of the energy policy, staff members
met once with representatives of a German subsidiary of Enron. In
October, staff had one final meeting with Enron officials. "None
of these meetings included discussion of the financial position
of the Enron Corporation," Addington wrote.
Cheney no doubt
released the new information with the full knowledge that it would
only leave Waxman demanding more. Sure enough, the day after receiving
Addington's letter, Waxman wrote to Cheney again. "Your response...raises
additional questions about the extent to which Enron may have influenced
the Administration's energy policies or provided information about
its own operations," the congressman wrote.
Waxman said
Addington's letter "shows that the access provided to Enron
far exceeded the access provided by the White House to other parties
interested in energy policy." Waxman also broadened his request
for information to include "the subjects discussed at the meetings,
any requests for changes in federal policies made by Enron executives
at the meetings, copies of any documents presented or discussed
at the meetings, and the names of persons attending the meetings."
Finally, Waxman
complained that Addington's letter "does not address whether
White House officials had other 'contacts' with Enron, such as telephone
conversations or e-mail communications," nor does it cover
"any meetings or contacts that Enron may have had with White
House officials who were not part of the energy task force, whether
on energy-related issues or other matters." "I hope you
realize the inadequacies of Mr. Addington's letter," Waxman
concluded. "I urge you to provide a full accounting."
Waxman has
no power to do anything beyond urge Cheney to respond. As the ranking
minority member of the House Government Reform Committee, he cannot
issue subpoenas or begin an investigation. So far, committee chairman
Dan Burton has shown no interest in joining in any requests for
Enron information, which means that Waxman will have to continue
freelancing, at least for the time being. (The real Capitol Hill
investigations will come in the Senate, where Democrats control
committees and the subpoena process.)
Still, Waxman's
inquiries have prompted Cheney to release information that he had
been reluctant to divulge in the past. Last summer, when Waxman
demanded to know the names of people who had consulted with the
energy task force, Cheney refused, just as he also refused a similar
request from the General Accounting Office. At the time, the vice
president's aides said Cheney believed revealing the names would
make outsiders reluctant to offer confidential advice in the future.
"People will not engage us in candor" if they knew their
advice would appear in the newspapers, a Cheney aide told National
Review last year. "We would be chilling the process in
the future."
Now, while
Cheney still has not released the names, he has revealed the number
and dates of Enron meetings, and, given congressional interest in
the subject, it seems likely that he will release more information
in the future. All of which suggests that the vice president should
have revealed the energy information last year. Most observers believed
it was going to come out some time; had Cheney released it then,
it would have been done in the interests of open government. Now,
it is being done in the context of a criminal investigation of a
major administration supporter.
In addition,
the present clamor suggests that if the White House has anything
— anything — it feels it should reveal about dealings
with Enron, it should do so now. That doesn't mean giving in to
Waxman, who not only has no committee power but also has no grounds
to make demands after years of stonewalling investigations of possibly
criminal wrongdoing in the Clinton administration (not just by supporters
of the administration, but by administration officials themselves).
Rather, the White House might ask Burton or some other House committee
chairman to make a formal request for information, which the White
House could then supply in its response. All through the proper
channels. In the months to come, the administration's enemies will
certainly demand more and more disclosure; the White House might
as well use its friends to get it done.
|
