Should Tauzin Take Himself Off Enron Case?
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Tonight, he's taken the lead on Congress' Enron investigation. But should the chairman of the Energy Committee take himself off the case? And the Clinton gifts, will they give Republicans yet another Clinton investigation?</s>ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Robert Novak. In the CROSSFIRE, Republican Congressman Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. And later, Democratic strategist Victor Kamber and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos.</s>NOVAK: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Congress today finally found an Enron executive it could like. No, make it, love. Sherron Watkins, the Enron executive who warned her bosses of big trouble ahead, testified before Congress for the first time, specifically before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is headed by our guest, Congressman Billy Tauzin. She was hailed as a heroine, a Houston Joan of Arc. Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts gallantly offered her the protection of Congress, if what's left of the Enron ruling class makes life hard for her. But is that a proper function of Congress? Actually, what are the 11 Congressional committees investigating Enron really up to? Fact-finding for legislation? Digging up new abuses? Brow beating the Enron guilty? Or just getting face time on national TV? Bill Press and I will seek the answers from Chairman Tauzin -- Bill.</s>BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Mr. Tauzin, good evening. Believe me, I have no love for the Enron executives, but it seems to me that even the Enron executives deserve a fair trial and a fair investigation. Mr. Chairman, you've been accused of leaking Enron documents and spinning them negatively. You said last Sunday on television that Mr. Skilling may have put himself in legal jeopardy. Have you lynched these guys before you've heard all the facts Congressman? Are you giving them a fair shake?</s>REP. BILLY TAUZIN, CHMN. ENERGY & COMMERCE CMTE.: Oh, absolutely. In fact, I think we're the only committee in Congress that is working bipartisan. John Dingell, the ranking Democrat, and I got together at the beginning of the investigation to make sure that our staffs were working together jointly, we're sharing information, and basically digging the facts out as we find them. Look, the facts speak for themselves, Bill. These guys are in deep trouble. And as we overturn more and more information, I think the FBI and SEC have a lot to work with now.</s>PRESS: Well let's -- tell us how deep trouble they're in, congressman. We know there's a lot of phony financial dealings going on here. Do you see any criminal activity? If so, on the part of whom? Who are the villains here?</s>TAUZIN: Well, I mean today Sherron Watkins identified the culprits, as she called them, the Skilling, the Fastow, Coppers, Rick Buy and Causey, both of whom got fired today.</s>PRESS: Criminal?</s>TAUZIN: Well, here's the question. If putting together financial transactions, that have no other purpose but to deceive investors is not financial fraud, I don't know what is. And if people knew they were doing that, and that's a question the criminal investigators have to prove, yes, indeed there could be criminal charges.</s>NOVAK: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you on one point. Your hearings are bipartisan. I couldn't tell the Republicans from the Democrats, because all of you just got on your high horse and a high</s>TAUZIN: On the contrary, I've had members of my committee come to me even today and say, "This has been the most informative educational series of hearings we've had in a long time." Not only are we being educated as to what went wrong at Enron, but I can promise you, presidents of corporations across America right now are rethinking the way they manage their corporations, and what they know and they don't know. Boards of director members are rethinking their responsibility about what questions they should ask about the managers, and what they should know about the way the managers are handling the business of the corporation. And a lot of people in corporate America are beginning to think seriously about their responsibilities to investors, the owners of the corporations in America. And even more importantly, there's lot of accounting firms thinking hard about their role in this affair. And I can guarantee a lot of people are nervous tonight about whether or not they're going to be in trouble with this.</s>NOVAK: Mr. Chairman, pardon me for my naivete. I've only been here for 45 years. And I didn't know that the function of Congress, the congressional committees, were to make corporation executives and accounting firms nervous. I thought it was to write legislation. And if you're going to get facts to write legislation, weren't you questioning the wrong people, these sorry executives from Enron? Shouldn't you have experts from totally outside of the accounting firms to find out what kind of legislation might be useful to protect the public interests?</s>TAUZIN: Well, actually, Bob, that was our hearing last week. We conducted a major full committee hearing, inviting accounting professors from the greatest schools in America, from Chicago, from Texas, and New York, and other places. We invited people from the investment banking industry and analysts to come and tell us about what's wrong with that sector. We got some great advice about how we can improve the accounting standards and how we can make better rules of disclosure. And that's our next step is literally to begin changing those rules and those standards, so that even the things that Enron did that were legal, that ended up deceiving or hiding facts from investors, we might make sure in the future are not proper.</s>PRESS: Well congressman, you know, the Enron executives may be treated like pariahs today, but they were yesterday's sweethearts, congressman. And nobody seemed to have had a bigger love affair with them, this being Valentine's Day, than you did. In 1989 to 2001, you received $6,464 from Enron and a whopping $57,000 from Arthur Andersen, which is more than any other member of Congress. Congressman, John Ashcroft recused himself from any Enron investigation. Why haven't you? And maybe, or why shouldn't you? Not maybe, why shouldn't you?</s>TAUZIN: Well, your network has been a big supporter of mine over the years and so has NBC and ABC and CBS. But with the 14 years, I suppose, that they've helped me as much as some of those other firms that helped me. And...</s>PRESS: Well, I hope we haven't done as much wrong as Andersen and Enron?</s>TAUZIN: Well, but remember we had to call you on the carpet, because you messed up the call of the election so badly. The projections you and our networks made with that projection system you had, may have even influenced the outcome of the election. You remember we had some pretty tough hearings about it?</s>PRESS: But can you be an honest broker, having taken all that money from...</s>TAUZIN: Well, I'm asking you, were we an honest broker with the networks? Did we hammer you when we thought you were wrong? See, the bottom line is, it doesn't matter whether you've been friend or foe. If you come before our committee having done something wrong or called into question the laws or statutes, or standards in this country, we're going to take you to task. And that's the way it ought to be. It doesn't matter whether you indeed supported any member of my committee or not. And by the way, Enron supported the top 15 people they supported in Congress. You won't find my name on that list. By the way, 8 of the 15 were Democrats. You know, they spread that largess around. That doesn't matter to me. My job is to take them on when they do it wrong, including the networks. And we've done that.</s>NOVAK: Mr. Chairman, I was fascinated by today's hearings with Sherron Watkins. Several of your colleagues called her a whistle- blower, but is she really Joan of Arc when she didn't -- she sent anonymous letter to Kenneth Lay? She didn't go the SEC? She didn't go the FBI? She didn't go to Billy Tauzin and the Commerce committee? Some whistle-blower. Haven't you gone a little bit overboard on the deification of Sherron Watkins?</s>TAUZIN: Well, we careful not to call her whistle-blower, in fact.</s>NOVAK: Ed Markey did.</s>TAUZIN: Yes, some people did, but she's very much different from a whistle-blower. And you're correct, Bob. What she did, however, was what I would hope a good employee or officer of every corporation would do. And that is, take to it the top when you see something going wrong. Advise the leader of the corporation if he doesn't know what's happening in his corporation. Give him advice on how to come clean.</s>NOVAK: And not go to the SEC?</s>TAUZIN: Well, no, she's done that. I mean, when the leader of a corporation refused to do it, when he refused to take her advice, in fact I called it the last clear chance to save his corporation, when she told him what was going on, told him what he ought to do to come clean and straighten it out, and he wouldn't do it, then she's come forward to investigators, not just our committee, but to those with the FBI and the SEC who were investigating the case.</s>PRESS: All right, Mr. Chairman, thanks so much for joining us tonight.</s>TAUZIN: Good to be with you guys.</s>PRESS: Please come back. There's a lot more to talk about. OK, and when we come back, you thought the Clintons had gone away? No, they're back again and still in trouble over White House gifts. We'll unwrap them and debate them when we come back.