|
 n
Capitol Hill today, there are ten committees investigating Enron:
the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the House Financial Services
Committee, the House Education and Workforce Committee, the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Senate Commerce, Science,
and Transportation Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, the
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee,
and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
A significant
number of people both in and out of Congress think that is too many
separate investigations, and several lawmakers have called for the
formation of a select committee to consolidate at least some of
the overlapping inquiries. But now Henry Waxman, the California
Democratic representative who is perhaps the most vocal antagonist
of the Bush administration on Capitol Hill, is calling for yet another
congressional investigation.
"It makes
little sense for our committee to duplicate [existing committee
investigations]," Waxman wrote in a February 11 letter to House
Government Reform Committee chairman Dan Burton. "There are
issues, however, that our committee is uniquely qualified to examine
and are consistent with the committee's focus in recent years. These
issues relate to Enron's political activities and influence. I ask
that you consider examining these issues."
Specifically,
Waxman wants an investigation of such topics as Enron's alleged
influence in the White House energy plan, the administration's opposition
to price caps, its position on the Dabhol power plant in India,
its position on the corporate alternative-minimum tax, and appointments
to the Federal Energy Regulation Commission. Waxman also proposes
to investigate a few aspects of Enron's role in energy deregulation
issues during the Clinton administration, as well as Clinton's position
on the Kyoto global warming treaty. In his letter to Burton, Waxman
writes that a new Enron inquiry "can be very important in understanding
how Enron tried to influence government policies and how it came
to be one of the most powerful companies in our nation's capital."
(Waxman is, by the way, a member of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, which is conducting what is perhaps the lead Enron investigation
on Capitol Hill.)
Although Burton
has not yet responded to Waxman's letter, there seems little likelihood
he will choose to begin Congress's eleventh committee investigation
of Enron. Beyond that, there are real questions about Waxman's enthusiasm
for multiple congressional probes.
In the past
Waxman has shown great concern about the possibility that the Government
Reform Committee might duplicate other congressional investigations.
In October 1997, for example, Waxman worried that the committee,
as part of its campaign finance investigation, might replicate the
Senate Government Affairs Committee and the House Education and
Workforce Committee's inquiries into alleged election fraud inside
the Teamsters union. When Burton issued subpoenas in the matter,
Waxman wrote, "Since committees in both the House and Senate
are already investigating the Teamsters, these subpoenas seem to
be another example of redundant and wasteful congressional efforts."
A few months
earlier in 1997, Waxman became concerned that Burton was duplicating
other aspects of the Senate Government Reform Committee's campaign-finance
investigation. In a July letter, Waxman objected to Burton's plans
to subpoena several witnesses who had already testified before the
Senate. "Unless your staff is able to demonstrate a compelling
need for additional topics to be raised with these deponents that
were not raised by the Senate, [emphasis in the original], depositions
of these witnesses should not proceed in the House," Waxman
wrote in an unsuccessful effort to stop the witnesses from being
called.
Now, however,
Waxman seems less afraid of the possibility of redundant and wasteful
congressional efforts. Indeed, the California Democrat, who bitterly
protested Burton's wide-ranging use of subpoenas in the campaign
finance probe, proposes to issue subpoenas of extraordinary scope
in a new investigation. He would demand "all records related
to contributions made by Enron Corporation or its political action
committee from 1996 through 2001 to candidates for federal, state,
or local office, political parties, political committees, Florida
recount committees, inaugural committees, or any entity organized
under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code." He would also
subpoena "all records related to contacts by Enron officers,
employees, or outside representatives with the Executive Office
of the President and all federal agencies between 1996 and 2001,"
as well as "all records related to contacts by Enron staffers,
employees, or outside representatives with members of Congress or
congressional staff between 1996 and 2001." Finally, in an
effort to bring prominent Bush supporters and advisers into the
inquiry, Waxman wants "all records related to Enron's decision
to enter into an employment or consulting relationship with Ralph
Reed," "all records related to the appointment, service,
and compensation of Lawrence Lindsey and Robert Zoellick on any
Enron advisory board or council," and "all records related
to Enron's employment or consulting relationship with Edward Gillespie."
In the campaign-finance
scandal, there was, at the core, one Senate-committee investigation
and one House-committee investigation — eight fewer than are
currently investigating Enron. Waxman's inquiry, were it to become
a reality, would undoubtedly run on the same track with at least
some of the existing probes in the House and Senate. "It's
hard to make the case that these things are not being investigated
when you have ten committees looking into this, and many of them
are run by Senate Democrats, who have a clear political stake in
this," says one GOP source on the Hill.
So why is Waxman
suggesting that an eleventh committee investigation be started?
Reading his letter to Burton, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion
that, Enron aside, part of Waxman's motivation is a continuing desire
to seek revenge for the campaign-finance investigation, which often
placed Waxman in the position of trying to limit or block inquiries
into illegal fundraising by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic
party. Waxman's Enron letter includes a detailed recounting of the
committee's subpoenas and expenditures in the campaign investigation,
concluding with the sentence, "I don't recount this history
to renew any disagreements between us on whether these actions were
appropriate" — a statement that seems guaranteed to renew
old disagreements as well as create new ones.
Waxman's opponents
might be inclined to dismiss his latest move as not worthy of a
serious response. But some in the GOP are nervously watching the
congressman from California. Capable of attracting highly positive
attention in the press — he was the subject of a glowing profile,
"Congressional Man of Letters," in the Washington Post
on Thursday — Waxman functions as something of a forward scout
for Democrats on Capitol Hill. With a safe seat and a solidly liberal
Beverly Hills constituency, Waxman is not afraid to take the lead
in attacking the Bush administration on a variety of issues; once
he has blazed the trail, more mainstream Democrats can follow. Republicans
should remember that Waxman almost single-handedly engineered the
current showdown between the General Accounting Office and Vice
President Dick Cheney over the records of Cheney's energy task force.
His latest idea might seem absurd, but no one in the GOP should
take it lightly.
|
