t r u t h o u t | Report
White House Stonewall
A Daily Review of the White House's Attempts to Keep America From Learning Their Secrets
DAY 27
Thursday, March 21, 2002
The White House Stonewall goes on, as the Bush administration continues to deny the non-partisan General Accounting Office's request for information on who the White House Energy Task Force met with while formulating national energy policy. For the first time in history, the GAO has sued the executive branch for access to the records. It has been 27 days since the GAO filed their suit against the Bush administration and 318 days since the White House first received the GAO request. Why is the White House going to such lengths? What are they trying to hide?
The Latest News on the White House Stonewall
Clinton and Reagan Officials Did Not Follow "Longstanding Tradition" Fleischer Cited*
The Washington Post today refuted an argument made by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer yesterday on a decision by the Bush administration to grant Congress testimony by Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge that would break a "longstanding tradition." Today's Post notes that White House aides who were not subject to Senate confirmation from the Clinton and Reagan administrations willingly testified before Congress. Fleischer said yesterday that Congress' attempts to make Ridge testify were "a dramatic break from the long-standing traditions that Congress has previously upheld vis-a-vis the executive branch. While the information is flowing, and flowing freely, from the executive to the legislature, sometimes it's never enough for a legislature." According to the Washington Post, "But others point out that Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. 'Sandy' Berger testified about Haiti and that his counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke also testified. President Ronald Reagan's national security advisers testified before Congress during the Iran-Contra investigation." Commenting on whether advisers of the executive branch should testify before Congress, Rep. Ernest J. Istook, Jr. (R-OK) said, "I find the concern among (Congressional) members is building. * The point is not whether a presidential adviser testifies, it's whether somebody can be given express major responsibilities under an executive order and then be exempted from accountability. I see it as respecting the Constitution."
Link to story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58891-2002Mar20.html
New Documents Reveal Bush Political Appointees Fought to Have Clean Air Rules Relaxed*
Yesterday, the Natural Resources Defense Council released documents obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency that revealed more information on the heated debate within the Bush administration over repealing parts of the Clean Air Act. According to the New York Times, "The documents, which the resources council said came from meetings in the first two weeks of January, show that some career officials in the general counsel's office at the agency were concerned that changes that political appointees in the agency were considering would violate the Clean Air Act and loosen crucial standards on controlling pollution." Commenting on the contents and implications of the documents, Natural Resources Defense Council director of the Clean Air Project John Walke said, "The documents are fairly damning indictments of what the Bush administration wants to do to the Clean Air Act." The actions taken against the Clean Air Act concerned a policy called "New Source Review," which allowed the EPA to sue aging coal companies for not complying with emission standards. The Bush administration's energy plan, written by the Cheney energy task force, called for a repeal of "New Source Review" and the EPA announced earlier this week that they would soon comply with that repeal.
Link to story: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/politics/21EPA.html
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Print This Story
E-mail This Story