Judge orders release of Cheney task force records, criticizes Energy Department

Associated Press / SFGate

[RCW2001]

Judge orders release of Cheney task force records, criticizes Energy Department
PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, February 27, 2002
©2002 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/02/27/national1804EST0818.DTL

(02-27) 15:04 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Energy Department to release thousands of records on Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, criticizing the government for moving at "a glacial pace."

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler could undermine the Bush administration's effort to keep secret the names of industry executives and lobbyists who met with the White House as it formulated its energy plan last spring.

The General Accounting Office and a conservative group, Judicial Watch, have filed separate lawsuits trying to force the White House to turn over the material.

Starting March 25, the Energy Department must turn over its documents to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. It must complete the task by April 10.

The department had asked to release the material in stages, beginning March 15 and ending May 15. The environmental group first asked for the documents last April 26 and sued the government in December.

The Energy Department and other federal agencies are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, while the White House is not.

"I don't know that it's possible for certain to tell what the documents will reveal, but obviously the DOE stonewalled us for almost a year and they presumably had a reason to do that," said Rob Perks, a spokesman for the environmental group.

The government says 7,500 pages on Cheney's task force are responsive to the NRDC's request. The department will continue to withhold many documents and will issue a list of them along with the legal reasons they are being kept secret.

"There can be little question that the Department of Energy has been woefully tardy" in processing the nonprofit group's request, wrote Kessler.

"After making a virtually meaningless release of some form letters back in May of 2001, the department has done little of substance -- apart from collecting and organizing responsive documents," the judge added. "What is even more distressing is that" there were at least 11 other requests for the same documents.

The government has no legal justification "for working at a glacial pace."

NRDC attorney Sharon Buccino praised the ruling, saying "the court has protected the public's fundamental right to know what its government is doing."

In a statement, the environmental group expressed confidence that with the court victory in hand, the NRDC "expects to make public -- for the first time since the task force was formed more than a year ago -- the names of participants, dates of meetings, and the topics discussed.

"That information will expose which energy companies or industry lobbyists influenced the work DOE staff did on the Bush-Cheney energy plan," said the environmental group's statement.

©2002 Associated Press  

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Hey, no flames taken. Fellow conservatives seem to believe that just because George W. Bush is in the White House, Washington has suddenly become Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood. Besides being frustrated with this simple observation, I have learned to laugh about it. Trying on the clothing of a cynic hasn't turned out to be that bad afterall.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Thank you for posting that information. "They were not paid industry lobbyists." I'm not clear on your reasons for thinking so. They were paid by Enron and they lobbied the government for policies they favored, using arguments they hoped would sway the government. What's the missing ingredient?

[LouD]

Lobbyists are registered agents who contact regulators, legislators, or executive branch officials to actively advocate for a specific policy, decision, or law.

That is, as I understand it, not what we are talking about in the case of Enron. Like it or not, Enron was a well respected player in the commodity energy business. They effectively made markets by matching buyers and sellers of energy. They understood the way that energy in all its forms could be arbitraged, in order to create efficient energy markets. Simply put, they were the experts in this industry. Even their competitors (and I used to be one) grudgingly admired them. They took a 100+ year old industry and shook it up, and nothing that has happened over the last year has changed that.

They were cocky and arrogant, and their hubris and their lack of integrity were their downfall. However, that in no way changes the fact that if you were drafting an energy policy in 2000 and 2001, you could not do a good job, or exhibit anywhere near the necessary due diligence, without talking to Enron, the biggest innovator and most successful company in the industry.

This is no different than any other policy formulation process. You have to gather information first, and you do it through interviews of the experts in the field. I did the same thing myself, working on Capitol Hill. Congress does it all the time, by having experts testify before the committees, as they draft legislation. Do you consider them lobbyists? Would you be happy if your government were creating policies without the input of those affected?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

You're running together two separate questions: First, with whom should the government consult, and second, should they disclose the names of those with whom they have consulted. You're making an extended argument that government should consult with industry when drafting policy. Sounds reasonable to me. But that's not the issue here. The issue is what does the Federal Advisory Committee Act require in the way of disclosure. If you think it only applies to registered lobbyists and that employees of Enron don't count, cite the statutory standard. So far, only one person is willing to post anything here about the specific requirements of the legislation. I can't test the claims made here re the FACA unless you can offer something on point.

[LouD]

To my knowledge, merely being an employee of a company does not make one a lobbyist for that company. Moreover, there is a substantive difference between approaching the government to advocate a specific policy favorable to a client, and being approached by the government seeking data to inform policy decisions.

Therefore, I believe that there is no requirement for disclosure. I can't cite relevant case law, but perhaps someone else can.

OPH: Any thoughts on this?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

It sounds like it's not going to be possible to sort this out without the text of the statute to see exactly how they draw the line. If you see it posted, I'd be grateful if you could ding me. Thanks.

[LouD]

Will do.

[freekitty]

I agree.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Thanks, at least someone does. I suppose that the law can be interpreted differently, but this is how I, the GAO, and Judicial Watch are interpreting it.

In looking at this case, we as conservatives also have to think about what setting this precedent will do in the future. If another Bill Clinton gets elected into office, are we going to regret that we let Dick Cheney and President Bush slide on this one?

[Texbob]

That liberal judge's order will never take effect, appeals will kick it out quickly.

[Texbob]

They let Bill and Hillary Clinton slide on several of these cases, I guess you think that did not set a precedent with you gutter democraps.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Who is "they"? There are many of us that are at least hoping for them to get nailed with civil lawsuits because the current Justice Department is doing nothing about the Clinton Crimes. A law is a law.

[Texbob]

Nor did Baby Killer Janet Reno's justice dept. do anything about Clinton crimes except help cover them up.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

You are correct in saying that Janet Reno's Justice Department did not do anything about the Clinton crimes. But how in the world does that exuse John Ashcroft's Justice Department from doing their duty? It does not and I expect the same standards out of them that I demanded from the Reno Justice Department, even if they didn't listen to the thousands of Americans that wanted to see Bill Clinton tried for Chinagate, Filegate, Travelgate, Mena, etc. I do not give up on the high standards that justice demands, even if there was a demagogue before that ignored the laws of our land.

[Texbob]

I agree with you post #174, I am very disappointed that Bush and Ashcroft agreed to leave the crooks Clinton's alone. They both failed in their oath to uphold the laws of the land. They appear to agree with Baby killer Janet Reno and Clinton, that when people reach the top of the political ladder they are no longer covered by the laws of our land. Both Clinton's should be in jail and Bush should be impeached for failing to uphold the laws of the land.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Bush has not done anything that would be considered an impeachable offense. But I caught your sarcasm, and honestly, I think that the people that elected him have every right to encourage him to go after Clinton, and to criticize him when he fails to. I cast my first vote ever for George W. Bush and I believed that he would sic John Ashcroft on Clinton. Obviously I was wrong, but you live and you learn.

[F.J. Mitchell]

# 44: I believe we all know who hired Craig, she just won't admit it. Since seemingly no one hired the boy in the first place , the US treasury should be demanding that he return every cent of his salary, plus interest. That is if anyone knows what became of Craig Livingstone.