 |
|
|
|
||
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> |
|
March
27, 2002 8:00 a.m. |
|
n
January, when chairman Joseph Lieberman opened the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee's first hearing on the collapse of Enron, he promised
a "rigorous, nonpartisan investigation producing concrete proposals
for reform." As the committee began its work, Lieberman limited the
probe to the actions of government regulatory agencies, asking whether
they could have done a better job dealing with Enron's bankruptcy and
its effect on employees and shareholders. Lieberman's caution helped win
the support of committee Republicans, who joined the chairman on February
15 in issuing subpoenas to Enron and accountants Arthur Andersen for information
about their contacts with regulatory agencies.
That was then. Now, Lieberman, who is weighing a run for president in 2004, has decided to greatly expand the Enron investigation and issue what amounts to a direct challenge to the Bush White House — a move that has caused a partisan split inside the committee that could ultimately threaten the future of the investigation.
Last Thursday, Lieberman announced the committee would issue new subpoenas to Enron and Andersen — along with members of Enron's board of directors — demanding information about contacts "with the White House or other federal agencies regarding the National Energy Policy." In addition, Lieberman plans to send a letter to the White House — it may go out as early as today — asking the White House to hand over information about its contacts with Enron.
According to Republican sources, the letter will likely be sent without the signature of Fred Thompson, the ranking Republican on the committee, who is said to object to the broadening scope of the inquiry. "It will be the first thing that Senator Thompson has not gone along with publicly," says a GOP aide. Should Thompson refuse to sign the Lieberman letter, the effect could be to transform the committee's Enron investigation from a bipartisan initiative into an essentially partisan one — precisely what Lieberman has said he wanted to avoid.
The dispute, which is on the verge of becoming public, is the latest in a series of disagreements that have been going on behind the scenes for months. According to GOP sources, Lieberman wanted to issue subpoenas for contacts between Enron and the White House in the committee's first round of subpoenas, sent out in February. But Republicans strongly objected, and Lieberman, trying to maintain a semblance of bipartisanship, backed down.
The subpoenas — narrowed to exclude the White House — produced no startling revelations. Instead, they were part of an investigation that focused on topics like protection of 401(k)'s and the failure of stock analysts to foresee Enron's collapse. While those were legitimate and responsible subjects for investigation, they did not produce a political boost for Lieberman and committee Democrats. "They have not gotten what they clearly wanted out of Enron," says a GOP source. "This was going to be political fodder for them, and it hasn't worked out that way. I think Lieberman has sort of petered out a bit."
Now Lieberman has returned to his original plan to issue subpoenas for contacts between Enron and the White House. And this time, when Republicans objected, Lieberman remained firm. That left Thompson with two choices. One, he could agree to the subpoenas, allowing Lieberman to send them out without a committee vote. Or two, he could object to the subpoenas and demand a vote. Under that option, Thompson would have surely lost — Democrats have a one-vote advantage on the committee — but a party-line vote would have made Lieberman's actions appear all the more partisan. The problem for the GOP was the possibility that at least one Republican might vote with the Democratic majority, giving Lieberman the minimal bipartisan support he wanted. So Thompson agreed to the subpoenas. (Republicans did, however, demand that the scope of the subpoenas be broadened to include areas in which the Clinton administration was actively involved with Enron).
But Thompson did not agree when Lieberman wanted to send the letter to the White House. "We're worried that it's inappropriate, because the White House did not regulate Enron, never regulated Enron, and had nothing to do with Enron's collapse," says one Republican. "We believe they've gone way beyond any appropriate scope of the committee's inquiry."
For their part, Democrats close to the committee deny they have targeted the White House. "These requests are not aimed at the White House," says one. "It's all aimed at what Enron was doing, not what the White House was doing, on these complicated issues that affected the nation's energy markets last year."
And what about the White House itself? There, officials are waiting for Lieberman's letter and remaining publicly cautious. "He is the chairman of the committee, so you take him seriously," says one administration aide. "We'll look at the letter and see what they are asking for and try to find some way to reach an accommodation with them. In the past we have been pretty clear about wanting to be helpful and also protect the right of the president and the vice president to receive private advice."
Given White House positions on issues like the secrecy of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, it's not at all clear whether the administration will be "helpful" enough to satisfy Lieberman. It's also not clear whether Lieberman will be willing to shed his bipartisan image completely by engaging in an open war against the administration. But the latest developments seem to suggest that a major battle is on the way.