Senator Gramm Helps Enron but Not Army Soldier Michael New
Conservatives Urged to Disavow
"The Senator From Enron"
Conservative activist journalist Cliff Kincaid has expressed astonishment at the decision by the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to present the "Defender of the Constitution" award to Senator Phil Gramm at the CPAC February 1 "Ronald Reagan Banquet." Senator Gramm got more Enron money than any other member of Congress (except one) and his wife Wendy, a member of the Enron board and audit committee, could face prison time for her alleged involvement. Kincaid said the award reflects badly on all CPAC sponsors and the conservative movement as a whole. The headlines might read: "Conservatives Honor Senator From Enron"
A scheduling conflict might prevent Gramm from attending and picking up his CPAC award. But Kincaid, president of America's Survival, Inc., said that conservatives should make a public display of distancing themselves from Senator Gramm and what he represents. Clearly, he sold influence and access to big contributors. On the other hand, Gramm rebuffed a deserving constituent, Army Soldier Michael New of Conroe, Texas, who was court-martialed by Bill Clinton for refusing to serve the United Nations and wear a U.N. uniform. Michael, who was given a bad-conduct discharge and had his military career ruined, never received any support from Gramm, who ran for president claiming he was against U.S. troops serving the U.N.
Kincaid added, "Gramm has advanced some elements of the conservative agenda. But under present circumstances, CPAC will be giving an award to a Senator who failed to help a deserving constituent but apparently did special favors for a company that financed his own political career. As a more than 20-year veteran of the conservative movement, whose group has co-sponsored CPAC in the past, I do not believe we should be giving any award for such conduct. We should wait for the Enron investigations to conclude and for an explanation of the Senator's curious inaction in the Michael New case."
Kincaid said he was told that the "Defender of the Constitution" award was picked for Gramm before the Enron mess developed. But Gramm should not have received such an award under any circumstances. He explained, "As Daniel New and I recount in our book, Michael New: Mercenary or American Soldier, Senator Gramm ran for president pledging that he would never assign U.S. troops to U.N. command but he failed to lift a finger on behalf of Michael New, one of his own constituents. We noted that, despite repeated requests, Senator Gramm completely failed to do anything on behalf of this soldier, whose only 'crime' was signing up for the U.S. Army and wanting to remain loyal to that Army and the U.S. Constitution. There was never anything in the law or the Constitution which allowed a president to assign U.S. troops to U.N. command. Clinton's policy was illegal and unconstitutional. But Senator Gramm never lifted a finger for Michael New. However, the legal case on Michael's behalf is going forward without the Senator's assistance." In contrast to the inaction of Senator Gramm, Rep. Tom DeLay and others rallied to Michael's defense.
| A copy of the letter, sent to several conservative leaders, follows: |
|
I am writing to express concern about the decision by the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to present the "Defender of the Constitution" award to Senator Phil Gramm at the CPAC February 1 "Ronald Reagan Banquet." Senator Gramm got more Enron money than any other member of Congress (except one) and his wife Wendy, a member of the Enron board and audit committee, could face prison time for her alleged involvement. This award reflects badly on all CPAC sponsors and the conservative movement as a whole. The headlines might read:
Conservatives Honor Senator From Enron
I am told that a scheduling conflict might prevent Gramm from attending and picking up his CPAC award. But I believe conservatives should make a public display of distancing themselves from Senator Gramm and what he represents. Clearly, he sold influence and access to big contributors. On the other hand, Gramm rebuffed a deserving constituent, Army Soldier Michael New of Conroe, Texas, who was court-martialed by Bill Clinton for refusing to serve the United Nations and wear a U.N. uniform. Michael, who was given a bad-conduct discharge and had his military career ruined, never received any support from Gramm, who ran for president claiming he was against U.S. troops serving the U.N.
Gramm has advanced some elements of the conservative agenda. But under present circumstances, CPAC will be giving an award to a Senator who failed to help a deserving constituent but apparently did special favors for a company that financed his own political career.
As a more than 20-year veteran of the conservative movement, whose group has co-sponsored CPAC in the past, I do not believe we should be giving any award for such conduct. We should wait for the Enron investigations to conclude and for an explanation of the Senator's curious inaction in the Michael New case.
I am told that the "Defender of the Constitution" award was picked for Gramm before the Enron mess developed. But Gramm should not have received such an award under any circumstances. As Daniel New and I recount in our book, Michael New: Mercenary or American Soldier, Senator Gramm ran for president pledging that he would never assign U.S. troops to U.N. command but he failed to lift a finger on behalf of Michael New, one of his own constituents. We noted that, despite repeated requests, Senator Gramm completely failed to do anything on behalf of this soldier, whose only "crime" was signing up for the U.S. Army and wanting to remain loyal to that Army and the U.S. Constitution. There was never anything in the law or the Constitution which allowed a president to assign U.S. troops to U.N. command. Clinton's policy was illegal and unconstitutional. But Senator Gramm never lifted a finger for Michael New. However, the legal case on Michael's behalf is going forward without the Senator's assistance.
In contrast to the inaction of Senator Gramm, Rep. Tom DeLay and others rallied to Michael's defense.
Although Senator Gramm didn't help Michael New, it appears he may have done a lot to help Enron. In light of the Enron scandal, the CPAC award to Gramm at this time, for "defending the Constitution," figures to be a major embarrassment. Robert Scheer in the Los Angeles Times on January 2 focused on Senator Gramm and his wife Wendy, who
"was still very much on the Enron board and being rewarded with future stock options when her husband last year pushed through legislation that exempted key elements of Enron's energy business from oversight by the federal government. Phil Gramm had obtained $97,350 in political contributions from Enron over the years…"
The Center for the Study of Responsive Politics confirms that Senator Gramm was number two on the list of congressional beneficiaries of Enron's political largesse. Number one was Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison with $99,500.
Byron York of National Review online acknowledged this, writing on January 11 that
"The two senators who took in the most from Enron are both Republicans from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchinson with $99,500 and the retiring Phil Gramm with $97,350.)"
As you may know, journalist Josh Marshall has raised some questions about Gramm's links to Enron. Marshall wrote on January 14:
"Is it too early to raise this rather elementary question? Was Phil Gramm's retirement from the Senate in early September tied to the Enron debacle? Consider the timing. . . .
"On August 14, Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling quit after only six months on the job for what he called 'purely personal' reasons. According to CNN, stock analysts were 'stunned.' Knowing what stock analysts couldn't have known then, it now seems pretty clear that Skilling quit because of the first rumblings of the earthquake that would leave the company bankrupt in less than six months. Around the middle of August, it seems fair to say, he knew things were very, very bad.
"Gramm's wife, Wendy Gramm was on Enron's Board and - even more important - on the board's audit committee. If things were going very wrong, and if the problems centered on the company's books being cooked, she'd likely be one of the first to know. And she would probably learn about it soon after Skilling. That is to say, sometime in late August.
"Senator Gramm announced his retirement on September 4th.
"Is all this speculation? Certainly. But the timing is hard to overlook."
U.S. News & World Report said that
"In 1993, with the backing of Wendy Gramm, then the chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the wife of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, Enron fended off stronger regulation of energy derivatives, the complex financial instruments on which it built its trading empire. (Just weeks after the CFTC vote, Wendy Gramm joined Enron's board of directors; Phil Gramm, a Republican, counts Enron as his top corporate contributor, and, as
former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, he helped thwart energy trading regulations.)"
The Hill newspaper reported that
"any investigation of Enron and the SEC oversight of its trading activities could quickly turn to focus on the role Sen. Gramm allegedly played to shield Enron from government regulation."
The Christian Science Monitor on January 15 reported that the Enron probes
"…will examine ties between Enron and the Bush administration, key legislators, and others. Some critics, for example, have questioned the actions of Wendy Gramm, the wife of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (R), one of the Senate's strongest advocates of deregulation. Mrs. Gramm, as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, proposed a rule to exempt energy swaps from federal oversight.
"The rule was subsequently adopted - after which she resigned to join Enron's board of directors."
Not surprisingly, the liberal-left is mobilizing to make the Gramms' conduct into a major issue. Public Citizen alleges that
"The legislation reducing government oversight of energy trading was muscled through Congress - without a Senate committee hearing - with the aid of U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas. Gramm was chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over the legislation he co-sponsored, but he chose to bypass his committee, and the bill was quietly tacked onto a
'must-pass' appropriations bill late in the session. Gramm's wife, Wendy Gramm, also aided Enron's rise to power. As chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, she pushed through a key regulatory exemption on Jan. 14, 1993, just as she was about to leave office. Five weeks later, she joined Enron's board of directors, where she served on the board's audit committee and had access to key financial information about the company."
Public Citizen is demanding that Wendy and Phil Gramm be forced to testify under oath about their knowledge of Enron's alleged accounting fraud and use of offshore tax and bank regulation havens.
Senator Gramm cannot be prosecuted for his failure to go to the aid of Michael New. But he shouldn't get an award for it, either.
Sincerely Yours,
S/ Cliff Kincaid
You can contact CPAC by phone at (800)-752-4391, by e-mail at cpac@cpac.org, or by mail at 1007 Cameron Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
CPAC's Web site is: http://www.cpac.org/
|