Who Helped Cheney?
The New York Times
January 24, 2002
By JOHN D. DINGELL
WASHINGTON -- Last February,
President Bush announced the
formation of a task force, led by Vice
President Dick Cheney, to develop
energy legislation. While task forces
are not new — Hillary Clinton headed
one to develop health-care legislation
— they are uncommon, and they raise
questions when they work in secret. In
the case of Mr. Cheney's energy task
force, these concerns are heightened
because of both his and the president's
strong ties to the energy industry, as
former oil executives and as recipients of large campaign support from the
industry.
As Congress prepared to consider administration energy proposals, it seemed
appropriate to have a full accounting of who served on and staffed the vice
president's task force, who spoke to its members and what these people told the
task force. On April 19, Representative Henry Waxman and I sent a letter to the
task force asking just those questions. We also asked the nonpartisan investigative
arm of Congress, the General Accounting Office, to follow up.
Unfortunately, all we received in reply to our requests were letters from the vice
president's lawyer telling us that we had no authority to ask these questions. To
date, with the exception of a letter this month listing five meetings between the
vice president's office and Enron officials, we have yet to receive even the most
basic information about the energy task force, like who it met with and what
documents it received.
Why are these questions important? For starters, the energy policy that the
president submitted to the Congress last May, after the task force had made its
public report, gave hundreds of millions of dollars in tax benefits to energy
companies and suggested relaxing various regulations. Energy industries appear to
have had special access to the members of the task force, while groups concerned
with environmental issues were virtually ignored. The Federal Advisory Committee
Act requires that meetings of nongovernmental advisers be conducted in public,
just to avoid the appearance of secret favoritism.
The G.A.O. had rarely met such stonewalling from the
executive branch and was prepared to sue the vice
president. This action was put on hold after Sept. 11, but the G.A.O. is now about
to decide about proceeding.
The recent disclosures of meetings between Enron executives and administration
officials once again remind us of the importance of disclosure. We are soon
scheduled to take up the electricity deregulation legislation in the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce. The vice president's task force called upon
the president to propose legislation to deregulate electricity markets further, a
position advocated by Enron. The vice president is certainly allowed to agree with a
position of one of the president's largest donors, but shouldn't we in Congress and
the American public be allowed to know how these proposals were formulated?
I do not favor lawsuits and subpoenas when simple cooperation between the
branches of government will serve the purpose, but Congress should not shy away
from seeking the facts. The administration must get over the notion that the public
will tolerate secrecy in the way this government makes policy decisions.
John D. Dingell is a Democratic member of Congress from Michigan.
nytimes.com |
