-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/fb59e6de6221fcbbeb7291157d7c4e85.pdf
8a9d554e1d976ad5a23ad2b3739a2986
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0470-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Lowell Weiss
Subseries:
17200
OA/ID Number:
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
Climate Change 10/22/97 Previous POTUS Speeches
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
s
92
2
6
Position:
�WMhlnfton FlnJl
That's Fit to Print"
Ddlill
t r * on 5 H f
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2X 1997
President Plans Energy Savings L PANEL OF EXPER
i In a Moderate Step on Warming
O P TN RHS
F AI T GT
E I
j Offert Tax Credits and
Money for Research,
but Delays Coal
A WIDE RANGE O PO'AE^S
F
JOHN K CUSHMAN Jr.
Advisers Back MovfS j^cr n
Appeals When C:v[r3j; or
Treatmeit Is Denied
WAJKINCTON. 0<i. U - P r w M i Ctmun laaiy tuuinM i i w t t f • M p r e c r i m to r i f h t i i c t e l w a n e u m n f t h a i it v o u i d be p a w l c n and
rrar t m m u c t l t y
tan«neu]
hut
thai ll B U M ba c a m a d out f j i a l j u
ba^rtcOo*.
T>i*plan M U
n t y so t a i
m t o
and r * M u x n I U M U 9 M IO o a i u r u *
E M c a m t m U B n el t n a r o
ts O t
p l a n t t ' l cUdtat*. But it
Winter Comes to the Summer Gime
F J A J i H i v t n a l a n n n h t u ittrr <«ie[>*^ p t * y < n
io - t m up t*for«
Cunt * *l Ui« Worid
Sena
b t T w t t n Ui( F l o r i d j h U r l i u 4nd l i t I n d i u u at
J»eoh« F i d d in C t o v t i M i a . P l » y i n | m u m p c n t u r n in
th* M't. tht Inrftuu
<ran. LO-}. to «*ai th* ttna
ti
two g u r a ipitct. SporaThurtdiy. p a p DIS.
In an Interview, I As Trade Center Smoldered,
Pol Pot Asserts Suspect Watched, Jury Hears
tut
tha
plan
w « i traeHly da-
Union Monitor
Seeking to Oust
Laborers' Chief ,
t i o n i mat a r t i r y i i > | to n t f o u i l t a
n e * c l i m a t e m a t y . At a n a f g u i t a i t
• M l Km ei tain, they w d thai a* the
L t r f t a i i i n i l a emitter of haat^rapp i n i . er p w i h o u a a . l a a ^ (ha Uiut* d t t a u a riwuU ba « m | n m and
M n t it M o n i r . | P t f « A l t ) .
He '$ No Savage
t bi i m l l adoai
' d a u l l i u lha
B Mr. Y - i
naa n u M BtMUT tran tha Jar-
iha l l n eamury. t h t c h u k n n
n r a i a f y . " M r . Cllmen l a i d la a
ntaacn ai (ha ^ a o o n a l G « « r m t M c •
i o c i t t y h t r a " I f • « do n n c h w ( t |
our c o u n t n o " , l i l t c o n M q u o K X i . |
M x r er lattr. v i l l bt A o i m c c v ,
In iha w t D t i a n o i a . H n w a w the
I H l t n a t y <m e l u u u O u n t * tkac
n , tkenad by I B aaoant n M a da
J M d r a a n a e ^ i te n m r M u t
w r v u . B»« treaty c a l M a m j a j o v
vtal U
ia a r a p o n u ba p u b l l a M d U i u « M k .
ny n Parianl D w u i a b o o n j w m r noi ia ktU p a o p k . " Pol M . ( t o lorAay. V b l l a a a Maat k i l l a d M paepl*
m t r Khmar H o u c * l a a f e r . MM tha
u d n i a n d n e n u a J M . Mr.
» r E a l i t r n Econeaic H«rt»»aiiiu
w in naarty »
! a( n * T r — C m a t
and am
C a u u r w r a d v M t t e t and w m t
m e m b e n of C « | r c H M y m e n na a a o a l r r w a n U m a y a n e w r t docu n u a n t r a l a m Oy VTtnho<dui|
> (
I I M ' i t r a i l by che y w
ne.
Man
y i t ™ an m Hmm «
C«anMtf«nPac«A»
c
*
ai-iertPwiet • T i t i a m - N a i u r a l l y i f e
M d io d t l M o u n t l v W
l u i ne l a i d . " T a M y that m i l i i e n i
T ^ t m i l i a r - > u contfucied l a r
"^urtdiy m • Khmt' » « j | t r i t m l -
ratievad
o w n . M r . Y o w f n d a m r * ! conlaatraiM u a
Mt V M P M
bAMd a
tntck aa t h r y t n o d m flaa i t e T n d e
Centtr l a n f t . l e e i n i I l k *
theb^a'i
L T*a A f f m ,
• o r t e e aftna.
n-Ont stiM
zPfTi,™.,":
m ietambpt
labor
wpan
• r . u k L T t t n * prootnmlt | i * t
Focus on Child Care
p M v o raetiua.
i n a n C. P a r r , deuia —i • u r VHI.
^ Z t ^ - Z j , - i
e T w mta^» aM
.
. -.
..,,,. .
.
• " " t n a m conierenet lociiy to | t e r v n me r u n t to b r t n i
leau attention on tne natnn i need i chirm
uewi
Mr. CeM er wy
* * " a n a n w e i a child c i ' » Can- i t r etficiai of t h t o n m . the " "
-
,
AnothtrpancimimMr tv
* I U l n i . i h * lounoir ind c
ol O i l o r d H t i l U i P l i m . i s ,
d t r UMM p r e o o t i H . > uroio
ha»t to diacloM " h i t p*ic»
—
<*>
W
of ui f o r m t tion couid p
lutian in the haaltri
M a r p i t l m i * fiavt n
[» v m i f l v a i t i i a i M n .
i p o n d t n i !or t h t veeKly m i | a i t n a .
>nd u K t w h i M to be publlahed in
'nil on ThurwJiy.
E j c t r p u v e r a m a d t public u d a y
I
ni»M
U tht U M M
C*R.-.mrtdanPat«AJI
r t to bar Mr. Coi* Ir
I
Tl>* l a r u m Pol Pet waa inter
i t v M * a t ul 1»T». t u n b t l e n i
• i t m i m t i e u o a i u m ended h i * tayr
Cllmonl
INT
I
a n io D e m o c r a t K c o l f a n . l n i n |
puni md miura
piny ind in c a n d U t m I I I ml- \
P r o i i a c n CNn
» l i h i • • u r r n l l a war
Sine, n n o u w t r . Pol P K hea reT i m e d an t n i i m a . una o< the f r » u
. T U ( l i m n of we t a r t u r y . r i l l lurttJ < I in h i i i i m n t u n c t u a r y w i U a i t a
• o m ai t m a n u i M for m i deedt.
• > t r t w t n m m o t thai he w a i 111 ar
K
r<f«i Pnf,
What Smoke? New Device
Keeps Cigarettes in a 'Box'
Alt
By G L E N N COLLINS
Honi K o n i Sloch* Tumbla
Hont K o n i r o c u auffered the • w o
the N r r ol l u k m d and c a n C M
Whitman Wo«a Black
Vatan
milltai
on rtcharraabta battene*. The tobacco b u n u
only m e n p u f f r t : i m a a m couM t a t t t pull
i o v t m o r V h i t m i n i t M * k i n | io a w
rvtr N t * J t n e y ' i b i a c i v m e n . and
i t r t r r a m i p p t a r ta be p a y t n t off aa
n lift t h * device t o t r m r l i p i
In L o t A f l t t l m , t h * h e m d n i < t n | b m c a b e h i n d a n d Hna m t h e m y ^ l r a i f n i t a d ' i l a e p t n ( l o n e " en Skid R a w
1
r n a ^ * ^ Humphny kof<
Redevelopment Plans Loom Over Skid Row
d Hrujnltrmmr _
ti
•t- f i n
pontThgrteij
O-ll
ftit-KUOt
AP U
Dl»)l
| t i n t r r r like i row of
u m j a n d Hne prnnied on
r> ai ihe c o m e r of F e a n h
)n the IMatMti
yond imi|t
Tht
u
•y DONTEKRY
hai dnfitd
L O ! A H C E L E S Ocr. 1* - E v i r y
i t i | h t on t h t M | t ol d r w n i e w n . a
w
•1
11
l
n
t
l
' .
^
o
- . hicr v m r r r
.
„ „ „ .
h,™.^, „ ^
*
n
lar
l4
o e v c * in ihe ether - and no m a n h
c a r r y i n i Ihe l i p t o p e o m p u i t r
Cntiu l i y th* a m c * d t m o n i t n i t i H
l t n | i n i ta * h i i h t h * loaacto i n a u i t r y will f o
mint a d.int*nui addiciw m e n wt.niY
. v c n i i a M t B i c h a r d A D a y " i r d . ctia.rman ol
.in nBii-iobnccn ( r o u p , the TnMeco P r o d u m
I n b i h i y P'niec' .11 t h * N r n h e n i T f m U n i > r r i i
f
H« a
I-
-Who - O l i d u t t
t
�^ E O EPRS
N L F XET
JGS BODNG
RE RAEN
I
O PTN RHS
F AI T I T
E G
Several members of the panel supported its proposals with reservations, saying that the changes could
increase costs for consumers, employers and insurers.
The commission endorsed the proposals as part of a "bill of rights" for
consumers and come as Congress is
considering bills to regulate health
plans and insurance companies.
President Clinton is expected to
A WIDE R N E O P W R
A G F O ES
Advisers Back Moves Such as
Appeals When Coverage or
Treatment Is Denied
Connnued on Page A?-)
Continued From Page Al
ondoise the reconimendations, adding momentum to Congressional efforts. But the commission did not say
how the new rights should be enforced. It listed alternatives, including'voluntary actions by health plans
^ |
By ROBERT PEAR
and new Federal and state laws and
WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — A Presi- regulations. Where possible, it said,
dential advisory commission decided the recommendations should be cartoday to recommend a wide range of
new rights for patients, including the ried out within three years.
The panel, called the Advisory
right to appeal denials of care or
coverage by insurance companies Commission on Consumer Protecand health maintenance organiza- tion and Quality in the Health Care
Industry, plans to submit its recomtions.
The 34-member panel, which in- mendations on a bill of rights to the
President late next month, after a
cludes top executives bf managedcare companies as well as doctors meeting here Nov. 18-19. It plans to
and consumer advocates, said pa- work through March 1998.
The commission, headed by Donna
tients should be able tn obtain nn
"cxtermi! rovlow" of declaluusi lliul
deny payment for services.
Many health plans now have their
own procedures to deal with grievances and complaints. The commission said all patients should also
have the option of appealing to an
Indopflndont outaldo authority, 13
1
Medicare beneficiaries do.
The panel also said health plans,
doctors and hospitals should be required to disclose substantial new
information that could help patients
assess health care providers.
For example, it said, consumers
should, on request, be able to find out
how often a doctor has performed a
procedure and how often the treatmem was successful. Also, it said,
patients should be able to find out
whether their doctors have been
sued for malpractice, how the doctors are paid and whether the doctors get bonuses or other incentives.
Consumer advocates and some
members of Congress tuy audi financial rewards may encourage doctors to control costs by. withholding
care that patients need.
Kathleen Sebelius, the Insurance
Commissioner of Kansas and a panel
member, said, "These proposals give
consumers-the tools with which to
empower tbemsefves."
Another panel member, Stephen F.
V/iggins, Ac founder and chairman
of Oxford Health Plans, said: "Under these proposals, a urologist will
have to disclose what percentage of
his patients are incontinent or impotent after he does surgery. This type
of mformation could produce a revolution in the health care system.
Most patients have no idea if they
are the first person or the 50th person to have surgery performed by a
panicuiar physician."
I . Shiilnlii, llm Sociumry nf lli-iillh
und Human Services, and Lubor Secretary Alexis M. Herman, has been
working under rules that require virtual unanimity for major recommendauons. It has been unable to reach
agreement on several thorny issues,
like patients' eligibility for inula of
new treatments, lifetime limits on
health coverage, and the appointment of ombudsmen to help consumeri navigate the heaUiLS.are^vsiem.
The panel Is still debating whether
to recommend a ban on various
types of discrimination In the marketing of insurance. Some panel
members said they believed that
some health plans shunned residents
of low-income black and Hispanic
neighborhoods or discouraged enrollment of .people with disabilities.
One member, Ronald F. Pollack,
the executive director of Families
USA, a consumer group, said the bill
of rights would he incomplete withoui a bun on such discnminauon
"It would be like adopting the Bill
of Rights in the Constitution, but excluding freedom of speech and freedom of religion," Mr. Pollack said.
The panel's draft report does say
that "all consumers are created
equal." Its recommendations would
apply to people in Medicare, Medicaid and other Government programs, and also to people with private health insurance. In particular,
the proposals would apply to large
employer-sponsored health plans
that are not regulated by the states.
The commission also approved
chapters of a draft report making
these points-.
qConsumers have a right to a
choice of doctors within a health
plan. Consumers should be allowed
A proposal would
disclose information
about doctors.
to go outside the health plan, at no
extra cost, if they need medical expertise not available in the plan.
^"Consumers with complex or serious medical conditions who require
frequent specialty care should have
direct access to a qualified specialist
of their choice within a plan's network of providers." H.M.O.'s have
often required patients to get permission or referrals from family
doctors before they visit specialists
IHealth plans should be required
In jiny fur i'liHMuctiL-y 1 mt' l
iv
slluuuon thul "a prudenl laypcixin"
would regard as an emergency.
H.M.O.'s sometimes refuse to pay if,
for example, chest pains are found to
be a result of indigestion rather than
a heart attack.
•IPntlenn being tronlod for chronic Illnesses or disabling conditions
should be able to continue seeing
their medical specialists for at least
™i^monthsJf,_'oL52S!S-- ' patie'nts are forced to switch to another health plan. The purpose of this
recommendation is to make sure
that the treatment is not disrupted.
•IDoctors should tell patients about
"any factors" that could influence
the doctors' advice to patients. Such
factors might include the doctors'
investments in hospitals, clinics,
home health care agencies and diagnostic imaging centers.
L. Ben Lytle, president of Anthem
Inc.. a managed-care company
reason
l)U3cd 11 ImlllllllUlullD,
1
th
e
irpi'iilri.lly
lold panel members that the proposals could increase the cost of health
insurance and that some businesses
would curtail coverage and more
people would be left uninsured.
Businesses were already facing
the prospect of higher costs, with
benefits experts predicting that premiums would rise at least 5 percent
next year for other reasons. And
several big managed-care comparues have reported sagging profits
In its report, the commission said
it had tried to "balance the need for
stronger consumer rights with the
need to keep coverage affordable."
But it said, "We recognize that, in
some circumstances, these rights
may create additional costs for employers," insurers and consumers.
THUPSDAY, OCTOBER 23,1997
�President Plans Energy Savings
In a Moderate Step on Warming
Offers Tax Credits and
Money for Research,
but Delays Goal
1
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
WASHINGTON, Oc;. 22 - President Clinton todayoutlined a moderate program to fight global warming,
saying that it would be painless and
even economtcally beneficial but
that it must be carried out quickly to
be effective.
The plan would rely on tax credits
and research subsidies to encourage
the conservation of energy in the
next few years. It would also give
American companies extra credit
for movmg more quickly than required to cut their emissions of
atmospheric pollutants that trap the
sun's heat and threaten to alter the
planet's climate. But u would not
reduce emissions to the 1990 benchmark until some time between 2008
and 2012. Further, unspecified reductions would follow.
"We have a clear responsibility'
and a golden opportunity to conquer
one of the most Important challenges
of the 21st century, the challenge of
climate change, with an environmentally sound and economically strong
strategy," Mr. Clinton said in a
speech at the National Geographic
Society here. " I f we do not change
our course now, the consequences,
sooner or later, will be destructive
for Amenca and for the world."
But the plan was quickly denounced .by many of the other nations that are trytng to negotiate a
new climate treaty. At a negotiating
session in Bonn, they said that as the
largest single emitter of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases, the United States should be doing more and
doing it sooner. [Page AH].
In the negotiations, parties to the
1992 treaty on climate change that
was signed by 160 nations In Rio de
Janeiro are seeking to strengthen its i
terms. The treaty called on Industrial nations to cut their emissions to
1990*5 levels by the year 2000. Most
Continued on Page A20_ _
Continued From Page Al
industrial nations, Including the United States, are falling short of that
target, and Mr. Clinton's plan defers
it for many years.
Under the Clinton Administration's plan for meeting the new targets of a binding treaty, the United
States Government would wait until
2008 before fully establishing fixed
caps on industnai sources of greenhouse gases, mainly the carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil
fuels. And only then, consequently,
would energy prices have to increase
to reflect the costs of mandatory
emission reductions.
The Admimstratlon. In effect, is
laying a heavy bet that Innovation
and the free market, driven by a few
billion dollars of tax incentives and
subsidies, will drive down fuel use in
the next few years without causing
any serious economic disruption.
This approach would therefore demonstrate the feasibility of deeper reductions that would come later.
Irowky/Tlw Ne* YorH '
The President said his plan would
"uphold our leadership abroad."
Mr. Clinton, who since his first
campaign for the Presidency has
pledged aggressive action to fight
global warming and who^ criticized
President George Bush for not supporting the 1992 Rio treaty on clK
mate change, found himself the tar- >
get of the same kind of criticism
today, but from other countries.
' it seems to me "that the United
States proposal Is even less" than
what was originally tn the treaty,
said Dr. Mark Mwandosya of Tanzania, the chairman of the developingcountries' caucus In the talks.
But Mr. Clinton described his
strategy as "realistic and effective."
"This plan is sensible and sound,"
he said, acknowledging the criti- \
cisms that erupted even before he I
began to speak. "Since It's a long- :
term problem requiring a long-term,
solution, it" will be phased in over
time. But we want to get moving
now."
The President emphasized his op-"
timltm about, technology as he stood
framed by the National Geographic
Society's logo, as an explorer might
be pictured on the cover of the National Geographic magazine, and not
a President defending a position attacked by environmental groups.
His plan, he promised, would "create a wealth of new opportunities for
entrepreneurs at home, uphold our
leadership abroad, and harness the
power of free markets to free our
planet from an unacceptable risk."
He said that even before a new
treaty was negotiated and ratified,
the United States would take new
steps to put itself on an energy diet
with a prescription that tn the next
few years would emphaslie incentives, subsidies. Federal procurement policies and rewards for those
who move the fastest to adopt promising new technologies.
The proposal is less ambitious
than the approaches sought by Japan, Europe or many developing
countries to control the buildup of
heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They all want
the Industrial nations to agree to
N
deeper and "earlier cuts in a new
treaty that is supposed to be concluded in Kyoto. Japan, in December.
Mr. Clinton also declared that the
United States would not accept binding commitments negotiated m Kyoto unless important developing countries also agreed to join the worldwide effort to reduce emissions.
Most environmental organizations
denounced the Clinton plan as coo
weak, although some praised the
President's call- for early actions.
Most big industry groups rejected
the plan as too costly, although some
said they liked the incentives it promoted.
"The United States is the only
country dragging us feet." said Phil
Clapp. the executive director of the
Environmental Information Cemer,
an advocacy group. "Unless he is
willing to take a stronger position -.n
Kyoto, the Clinton-Gore Administration w\U be responsible for the collapse of the talks."
But Michael Oppenheimer, senior
scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said: "For the first time
there is a good chance for a constructive outcome at Kyoto. One of the
major defects in the plan is that it is
not aggressive enough in the longer
term. But the early reductions are
extremely important, because they
could get U.S. emissions under control. Emissions are basically exploding at this point."
Thomas J. Donohue, the president
of the United States Chamber of
Commerce, said his business federation would oppose the proposed emission-trading scheme that is at the
heart of the Administration's plan.
"Capping emissions amounts to
energy rationing, which drives up
consumer costs as effectively as
higher energy taxes," Mr. Donohue
said.
But Michael Marvin, the executive
director of the Busmess Council for
Sustainable Energy, said, " I t Is what
we have advocated from the beginning: clear, modest steps to get us
back to 1990."
"Mr. Marvin, whose group represents companies including appliance
manufacturers and purveyors of
clean fuels, renewable energy, and
conservation technologies, added:
"It is an important step. In an 13557
world, we would have argued for an
earlier timetable earlier. Bat this
puts the U.S. in the ball park and Is a
defensible, negotiable posiUon."
Like the targets and timetables
that Mr. Clinton proposed, the package of incentives is relatively modest. The $5 billion in tax cuts and
research subsidies over five years
would amount to a bit more than a
penny per hundred dollars of economic activity — $1 billion annually
in a $7 trillion economy. Looked at
another way, it would be enough to
give every citizen an annual rebate
covering one-fourth of the cost of a
high-efficiency light bulb.
Any treaty would require approval
from two-thirds of the Senate, and
some elements of Mr. Clinton's plan
. would have to be written into law by
Congress, where there is considerable resistance to his approach.
Z'z
IS
�Union Monitor
Seeking to Oust
Laborers' Chief
Howard Gutman. a lawyer for Mr
Coia, said, "As far as I know, no final
decisions have been made on whether or not to bring charges."
In nn miorviow ItiNl yom. Mr Culu
suid, ••[ am not controlled, never
were, not influenced by, and never
were." by organized crime.
Mr. Coia is the son of a former
secretary-treasurer of the laborers
who Federal prosecutors say worked
closely with Raymond Patnarca, the
crime boss of New England who died
in 1984. Following in the footsteps of
his father, Arthur E. Coia, Mr. Coia
first headed the laborers in Providence, then in all of Rhode Island and
later throughout New England.
Mr. Coia does not fit the image of a
traditional labor boss: he often
drives Ferrans and he has an ocean-:
front mansion in his native Rhode
Island.
His union represents a va'ried
group of low-paid workers, including
brick carriers, asbestos removers,
tunnel diggers and toxic-waste haulers.
Federal officials declined to discuss details of the charges that Mr.
Luskin plans to bring. In the past.
Justice Depanment officials have
pressed Mr. Luskin to investigate
Mr. Coia's friendship with Raymond
Patnarca Jr., who. Federal prosecutors say, inherited the position of
crime boss of New England after his
father died.
Federal investigators have also
encouraged Mr. Luskin to examine a
trip to Chicago in which union officials pushed Mr. Coia,. according to
his own testimony, to meet with people who Mr. Coia said he discovered
at the time were Mafia figures. Mr.
Coia said he was told to meet them to
obtain permission to take a top position in the laborers' union. Mr. Coia
said he was taken aback by that
Chicago tnp because it taught him
the extent of mob involvement in the
union. But Federal prosecutors have
questioned Mr. Coia's assertions as
disingenuous, insisting that he long'
knew about the laborers' links to
organized cnme.
In a telephone interview. Mr. Laskin said- "We have stated publicly
that we are aggressively pursuing
nnv credible allegarmn'; ngmnM Mr
(.'DUI riii.-i is it duur cuiiiimni'iii oi iiiu
commitment we made to the Justice
Department, and we have and will
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
fulfill that commitment."
A former Federal prosecutor hired
But Federal officials said that in
io clear, up the laborers' union plans
mid-October Mr. Luskin told them
10 bring internal charges of associatthat he would file formal charges to
ing with members of organized
be heard by an Internal union judgo.
crime that could oust the union's
Peter Vaira, who was United Sta'.es
president. Arthur A. Cota. GovernAttorney m Philadelphia.
ment officials said:
Under its 1995 consent decre,- with
Mr. Coia (pronounced COY-yuh)
the laborers, the Justice Department
would be tried before a union hearing
reserved the right to take over the
officer, also a former Federal prosunion if it grew unhappy with the
ecutor, in an unusual arrangement m
progress of the union's internal
which the Justice Depanment has
housecleaning. In addition, the Jusessentially given an m-house union
tice Department maintained the
prosecutor the task of rooting out
right to indict laborers' officials incorruption in the 700,000-member
dependent of whatever interna]
union. The charges, labor expens
charges are brought against them.
said,.would represent the first time
While the charges against Mr. Coia
that an internal union monitor has
are an embarrassment to President
moved to oust a union's president.
Clinton, they can also be seen as a
Under the arrangement with the
vindication. Pointing to Mr. Coia's
laborers, the Justice Depanment refriendship with Mr. Clinton and to the
serves the right to bring criminal
laborers' donations to Democrais,
charges against Mr. Coia or any othRepublicans have repeatedly asserter official of the union, the Laborers
ed that the Clinton Administration
International Union of North Amerhad agreed to a sweetheart deal in
. ica. Republicans had criticized the
letting Mr. Coia's union police itself.
• Clinton Administration for letting the j
But Justice Depanment officials deunion conduct its own investigation, j
fended the arrangement as a moneybut Admmistration officials said yes-1
saving experiment to see whether a
terday that the charges against Mr.
union could cleanse itself.
Coia would indicate that the arrangeClinton Administration officials
ment has worked well.
are now pointing to the charges
Still, a move to bar Mr. Coia from
against Mr. Coia to assert that the
the union would in many ways em-j
agreement was an effectwe mechabarrass the Clinton Administration.
nism to clean up the laborers, while
Mr. Coia's union was one of the three
saving the Federal Government
most generous contributors to Presiyears of expensive litigauon.
dent Clinton's 1997 inauguration,
buying $157,000 in tickets. The union
John Russell, a Justice spokeshas also been one of the biggest
man, said. "We're constantly vigidonors to Democratic coffers, giving
lam with the consent dPgree and feel
the party and its candidates $2.6 milas if it's meeting its purpose."
Mr. Coia has repeatedly denied
Confinued on Page A18
associating with mob figures and asserts that he has sought to nd the
Connnued From Page Al
union of mob influences ever srnce he
became its president in 1993.
lion in the last campaign cycle. In ,
Federal investigators have also
He acknowledged, however, that
addition, Hillary Rodham Clinton voiced concern that Mr. Coia once some laborers' officials associated
has spoken to a laborers' convention, appointed John Serpico. a Chicago with organized crime.
and Mr. Coia and Mr. Clinton have laborers' official who has admitted
"My knowledge of pockets of corbecome so friendly that they have associating-with mob leaders, to be a ruption" in the laborers "is limited,"
exchanged expensive golf clubs as hearing officer on corruption cases Mr. Coia said last year. " I had an
within the union.
gifts.
idea it was a good union. It might not
Government officials said it was have been as good as I thought'"
The accusations come at a difficult
time for the nauon's labor move- possible that Mr. Coia would resign
Some Federal officials voiced
ment, which has already been from the union and its presidency fears that someone even more inthrown off balance by the fund-rais- before charges were brought, thus volved with organized crime might
ing scandal of the Intern at ion ai rendering the internal investigation replace Mr. Coia if he was ousted by
Brotherhood of Teamsters. Mr. Coia moot. But these officials said the the in-house prosecutor. Indeed,
is one of the nation's most prominent evidence turned up m the internal many labor leaders say Mr. Coia has
union leaders and has been elected j~ invesugation could be made avail- been an exemplary union president.
president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s or- able to the Justice Department for He has enthusiastically set about organizing committee at a time when" further investigation.
ganizing new members, investing
In an unusual move widely criti- millions of dollars in such an effon.
labor is focusing on recruiting new
cized by Congressional Republicans, He has fought for a higher minimum
members.
the Justice Depanment dropped
FoHoraj officials who spoke only plans in 1995 to file a 212-page civil wage and against efforts to reduce
on the condition of anonymity said racketeering complaint that sought spending on occupational safety.
Mr. Coia has acknowledged knowthat Robert Luskin, the laborers' in- • to oust Mr. Coia and take over the
house prosecutor, has told them he union on the ground that it was wed- ing the younger Patnarca, saying
they met innocently in a lawyer's
will move to bar Mr. Cola from the ded to orjtumxod urimu.
office in the early 1880*9 when both
union on various charges. Including
To avoid lengthy and expensive
associating with mobsters, acquiesc- litigation, the Justice Department Coias and the elder Patrlarca were
ing in letting mobsters run parts of
agreed to let the laborers name an charged in a kickback scheme. Those
the union and receiving favors from m-house prosecutor and conduct its Federal charges were thrown out
under the statute of limitations.
companies with which the union has own ami-corrupuon investigation.
Mr. Cola, who breeds Rottweilers,
contracts. These officials said Mr.
Mr. Luskin, a former organizedLuskin has told them he will file the crime prosecutor now tn private said that after meeting the younger
Patriarca they agreed to try to mate
charges by the end of this month.
practice in Washington, declined to
Throughout the investigation, Fed- discuss the status of the case against Rottweilers. The efforts failed to
eral prosecutors have looked over Mr. Coia. He said that in his three produce puppies.
Mr. Luskin's shoulder, often giving years as in-house prosecutor he has
him questions to ask Mr. Coia in the never commented on the status of an
six depositions he has made.
investigation.
1
•Tt
�Excerpt From Clinton Comments on Global WarmingBy The New York Times
•v TV*
a
^
•<
^
H
O
00
ft
>0
to
CO
J"
ff
W/AS/l/NGTON. Ocl. 22 — Following is an
excerpt from remarks by Presidenl Clinion loday
lo Ihe Naiional Geographic Society on Ihe proposal for stabilizing industrialized nations' release of gases that may cause global warming, as
recorded by the Federal News Service, a private
transcription company :
The vasl majorlly of the world's climate scientists have concluded that if the countries ol the
world do not work together to cut the emission of
greenhouse gases, then temperatures will rise
and will disrupt the climate. In fact, most scientists say the process has already begun. Disruptive weather events are increasing. Disease-bearing insects arc moving to areas that used to be too
cold for them Average temperatures are rising.
Glacial formations are receding.
Scientists don't yet know what the precise
consequences will be, but we do know enough now
to know that the Industrial Age has dramatically
increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
where they take a century or more to dissipate
and that the process must be slowed, then
stopped, then reduced if we want to continue our
economic progress and preserve the quality of
life in the United States and throughout our
planet
Wc know what we have to do. Greenhouse gas
emissions are caused moslly by the inefficient
burning of coal or oil for energy. Roughly a third
of these emissions come from industry, a third
from transportation, a third from residential and
commercial buildings. In each case, the conversion of fuel lo energy use is extremely inefficient
and could be made much cleaner with existing
technologies or those already on the horizon, in
ways tha'. will not weaken the economy bul in faci
will add to our strength in new businesses and
new jote. If we do this properly, we will not
jeopardue our prosperity; we will increase It
With that principle In mind, I'm announcing the
instruction I am giving to our negotiators as they
pursue a realistic and effective international cli
mate change treaty. And I'm announcing a farreachmg proposal that provides flexible, marketbased and cost-effective ways to achieve meaningful reductions here in America
I want to emphasize that we cannot wait until
the treaty is negotiated and ratified to act The
United States has less than 5 percent of the
world's people, enjoys 22 percent of the world's
wealth, but emits more than 25 percent of the
world's greenhouse gases. We must begin now to
take out cur insurance policy on the future. In the
inlernauonal climate negotiations Ihe United
States u-JI pursue a comprehensive framework
that indules three elements, which taken together will enable us to build a strong and robust
global agreement. First, the United States pro
poses at Kyoto that we commit to the binding and
realistic largel of returning lo emissions of 1990
levels beTween 2008 and 2012. And we should not
stop thert We should commit to reduce emissions
below I'M) levels and the five-year period there
aflei. an: we musl work toward further reductions in l i t years ahead.
The incjstrialized nations tried lo reduce emissions lo ]'?90 levels once before with a voluntary
approach but regrettably most of us, including
especially the United Slates, fell short We musl
find new resolve lo achieve these reductions And
to do thac we simply must commit lo binding
limits.
Second, we will embrace flexible mechanisms
for meetng these limits. We propose an innovative JOHN implementalion syslem lhat allows a
firm in one country to invest in a piuject lhat
reduces emissions m another coumry and receive
credit for those reductions at home. And we
propose an Interiialional system of emissions
trading.
These innovations will cut worldwide pollution,
keep costs low and help developing countries
protect their environment, too, without sacrificing their economic growth.
Third, both induslnalized and developing countries must participate in meeting the challenge of
climate change. The industrialized world must
lead, hut developing countries also must be engaged The United Slates will not assume binding
obligations unless key developing nations meaningfully participate in this effort As Piesidenl
Carlos Menem staled forcefully last week when I
visited him in Argentina, a global problem such
as climate change requires a global answer.
If Ihe entire industrialized world reduces emissions over the next several decades, bul emissions from the developing world continue tu grow
at Iheir current pace, concentralions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue lo
climb. Developing countries have an opportunily
to chan a different energy future, consistenl with
their growth potential and their legitimate economic aspirations. What Argentina, with dramatic projecied economic growth, recognizes is
true for other countries as well We can and we
must work together on this problem in a way that
benefits us all
Here at home, we must move forward by
uuleasliing the full power of free markets and
technological innovations to meet the challenge of
climate change. I propose a sweeping plan to
provide incentives and lift roadblocks lo help our
companies and our citizens find new and creative
ways of reducing gieentiouse gas einissions
�Battle Stage Is Set
Clinton Proposal on Global Warming
Defines Issue for Rich and Poor Alike
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
BONN, Oct. 22 - After two years
of struggle over what to do about
global warming, the Clinton Administration and the developing countries in the global game of greenhouse politics have put
j ,
their cards on the table,
, . , ^ negotiations have at
.inaiysis and
.
V
e w s
b e g u n
n
e a n i e s t
The talks "have come
alight, and not a moment too soon,"
said Michael Zammit Cutajar of
Malta, the executive secretary of the
United Nations body that administers the 1992 treaty on climate
change.
Delegates from 150 countries are
gathered here to discuss possible revisions to the treaty, in the last of
eight negotiating sessions leading up
to a final session in Kyoto, Japan, in
December.
The American plan, announced today by President Clinton in Washington, represents the low-ball bid. Mr.
Clinton called for stabilizing Industrialized countries' emissions of
heat-trapping gases at 1990 levels by
about 2010, with a modest reduction
below 1990 levels by about 2020.
A sharply contrasting proposal,
presented formally today by the developing countries and China, calls
for the rich countries to cut their
emissions by 7.5 percent below 1990
levels oy 2005,15 percent by 2010 and
35 percent by 2020.
An agreement In Kyoto, should one
be reached, apparently lies somewhere between the two boundaries
set by the United States and the
Group of 77 Plus China, as the developing countries call themselves.
With today's announcements, the
negotiating "universe" has been
firmly delineated for the first time.
Under the 1992 treaty, the developing countries are explicitly exempted from .undertaking any specific
commitments, and they have steadfastly maintained that they will not
agree to do so unless the rich nations
demonstrate convincingly that they
are serious about taking the lead.
The rationale is that since the industrialized countries are the biggest
emitters of the gases and got rich by
emitting them, the>*should take the
first steps toward reduction.
While agreeing that the developed
countries should take the lead, President Clinton reasserted today the
United States position that the poor-
THUPSDAY,
the chairman ot the developing country caucus in the talks.
But there is another way of looking
at what the American proposal
would mean. Even before its features were known. Mr. Zammit Cutajar had pointed out that 1990 was not
a magic number. The way to measure a proposal, he said, is by gauging
what it would actually mean in emissions terms. By that standard, the
United States would reduce its emissions about 25 percent from where it
would otherwise be around 2010, the
Administration said.
"It would be, admittedly," said Dr.
Mwandosya, especially since the
United States is the biggest emitter
of carbon dioxide in the world. ' But
is it enough to pull the rest of the
world toward stabilization of concentrations? I don't think it is." Others
noted that the United States target
and timetable would require countries already below or approaching
1990 levels to do little or nothing.
Everyone agrees that it will eventually be necessary' to reduce emissions well below 1990 levels if concentrations, of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere are to be stabilized.
This is because 1990 levels were already too high; the overall concentration of gases in the atmosphere
keeps going up at that level of emissions.
er countries must be part of any
negotiated solution.
The poorer countries' emissions
are expected to exceed those of the
developed world within two or three
decades. Two of the largest of them.
China and India, have abundant reserves of coal, the most troublesome
fossil fuel in terms of emitting heattrapping, or greenhouse, gases. Global warming occurs when such gases,
chiefly carbon dioxide, accumulate
in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is L
produced by the burning of coal, oil j
and natural gas, the energy underpinnings of the global economy.
But the United States is the
world's major producer of greenhouse gases, and the Amencan proposal has been deemed critical for
the success of the talks. For two
days, the delegates gathering at the
Beethoven Halle opera house on the
Rhine have been anxiously awaiting
the American proposal.
As details began filtering out of
Washington, some reactions were
predictable. An Imponant delegate
from the European Union, which favors a 15 percent reduction in emissions by 2010, said he "looked at the TARGET
figures, and...." He made a dismissive gesture.
Global Warming
But some industry representatives Each faction's proposals to limit
considered the proposal quite ambi- worldwide emissions of gases that
tious. "This will be a tremendous cause global warming.
cut," said Gall McDonald, president
of the Global Climate Coalition, an UNtTEO STATES
Industry group in Washington. "It's a Return yearly average emissions to
very aggressive target."
1990 levels between 2008 and
To Raul Estrada-Oyuela of Argen- 2012. and reduce emissions after
tina, the chairman of the Bonn talks, that..
the Clinton proposal was "really
modest; we were waiting for a big- DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND CHINA
ger effon." But, he said tonight after Cut emissions 7 5 percent below
watching Mr. Clinton's speech outlin- 1990 levels by 2005, 15 percent by
ing the proposals, "it's encouraging 2010.and 35 percent by 2020
that the President of the United
States takes the issue so seriously." EUROPEAN UNION
To some delegates, the American Cut emissions 7.5 percent below proposal looked puny because the 1990 levels by 2005 and 15 percent
1992 treaty already obligates rich by 2010.
countries to aim at capping emis- ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES
sions at (990 levels in 2000. Instead, Cut emissions 20 percent below
United States emissions in 2000 are
expected to be 13 percent higher than 1990 levels by 2005
JAPAN
they were in 1990. Some European
Union officials say the Europeans as Return yearly average emissions to
a group will meet the goal.
1990 levels between 2008 and
"It seems to me that the United
2012 (This target could be lowered
States proposal is even less" than
for individual countries.)
what was originally contained in the
treaty, since it would delay the 1990
TTie N e * York Tin
stabilization goal by 10 years, said
Dr. Mark Mwandosya of Tanzania.
OCTOBER 23. 1997
�President C.inton and Vice President Al Gore before Mr. Clinton presentee, a pro ra
g
m
of tax credits and research
s
^
J
^
^
Z
Z
^
�^The soft-money cake was eaten
by both parties," Senator Carl Levin,
Democrat of Michigan, told Senator
Thompson, compounding the chairman's allusion with his own reference to soft-money donations. Republicans and Democrats alike have
found ways of using these large, unregulated contributions to the political parties to supplement the tightly
regulated hard money that is earmarked for individual campaigns.
"This is what Congress permits,
folks," said Senator Levin, arguing
By FRANCIS X. CLINES
that soft-money machinations were
WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 - Seizing scandalous but legal. "Heck, we not
on the newly released White House only permit it, we thrive on it."
videotapes, the chairman of the SenThe Republican gleanings from
ate inquiry mto campaign abuses the White House videotapes were
accused President Clinton today of limited to a few minutes of excerpts.
perpetrating a "ruse" on the taxpay- Senator Thompson insisted that
ers by accepting public financing for these made the case that the Demohis re-election campaign in exchange crats might have illegally taken forfor voluntary spending limits while eign donations, used dummy contribalso directing an expensive round of utors and improperly coordinated
additional television advertisements soft- and hard-money campaigning.
to bolster his standing in the polls.
The President, Mr. Thompson not"They found a way to have their ed, signed ah agreement to limit his
calte and eat it too," declared the campaign's spending in return for
chairman, Senator Fred Thompson, taxpayer financing of $75.2 million,
after showing a selected highlight yet then oversaw a $44 million softreel from the White House tapes and money advertising campaign. The
contending that it confirmed a "bla- White House insists that the advertant manipulation" of the election tisements were entirely legal, saying
they were developed in the name of
laws by the Clinton-Gore ticket.
The Tennessee Republican was advocating specific issues, not Mr.
immediately rebutted by Democrats • Clinton's candidacy.
Mr. Clinton was shown on a tape
wielding their own highlight reel, of
President Ronald Reagan's lauding from Dec. 7, 1995, exulting before
big-money donors at the White House donors in "the huge difference"
over a decade ago. But Mr. Thomp- made by the issue advertisements in
son said there was a difference be- crucial electoral states.
"We realized we could run these
tween Mr. Reagan's expression of
appreciation and Mr. Clinton's cele- ads through the Democratic Party,
bration of a systematic way to raise which meant we could raise the monadditional money, in what the Presi- ey in $20,000, $50,000 and $100,000
dent described as "$20,000, $50,000 blocks," he said.
and $100,000 blocks," to be spent by
When the Democrats showed the
the Democratic Pany on issue ad- Reagan tape, Mr. Thompson, looking
vertisements that would help his angry, responded that it was "excampaign.
tremely unfortunate" to compare
"What you have is a sham situa- the thanks Mr. Reagan gave donors
tion," said Mr. Thompson, who added to Mr. Clinton's systematic use of the
that he would file a "brief" with White House to track contributions
Attorney General Janet Reno detail- and fete donors through coffee gathing how his investigating panel, the erings and overnight stays.
"You didn't see anybody in there
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, had shown that the activity of Hugging the President and taking the
the Clinton campaign "cries out for Fifth Amendment and leaving the
country," Mr. Thompson said, referan independent counsel."
"Wc can tnko thU mam of fuctn rlnii to tnpoii nhowtng Mr. Clinion
right up to the courthouse door, but with John Huang, Yah Lin Trie und
we can't break the door down," he Johnny Chung, all Clinton friends
complained at a hearing that was and fund-raising principals who have
:ud<!enly truncated before two White ' declined to cooperate with the inquiHouse communications aides could rySenator Joseph I. Lieberman,
be asked why for six months the
President's lawyers had been unable Democrat of Connecticut, said that
to find the videotapes, which were while he saw no evidence that the
President had broken the law, "the
under committee subpoena.
The session, and those of other videos make me uncomfortable."
"They make me itch," the Senator
Senate committees, were cut short
President has better
when Democrats refused to grant said. "The and the bigger contriburoutine permission for today's slate things to do,
tions you accept, the more expectaof Senate hearings. The refusal was tions some people have that they
part of an effort by Democrats to have a call on their Government for
pressure the majority Republicans something in return."
to consider a bill that would overhaul
campaign finance law.
Clinton s Use
OfSoftMoney
Is Denounced
By Thompson
1
'Si
Q
in
a.
�The President Bets on Technology
The most important thing to understand about
President Clinton's speech on global warming yesterday is that he has asked the United States, a
hungry producer and consumer of energy, to reverse course. He has publicly committed the country to a plan to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide,
the gas mainly responsible for what could be a
calamitous increase in atmospheric temperatures.
He has agreed to binding targets and a timetable —
the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions at
1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. He has proposed
a system for doing so, relying largely on market
mechanisms, energy efficiency and technology.
His package is less than what many environmentalists had hoped for and not nearly as aggresnlve an the gottla ilini snme rorcltjn count rk'H will put
on the table when the industrialized nations convene
in Kyoto, Japan, in December to try to negotiate a
global climate treaty. The Europeans, for example,
are seeking net reductions from 1990 levels by a
much earlier date. 2005. But the plan also asks
American industry to make greater investments in
cleaner fuels and new technologies than they have
been asked to make in the past. The threat Is clear.
If industry does not make these investments, Mr.
Clinton's successors may have to resort to far more
expensive remedies to achieve the targets he has
set.
Indeed, there are many who argue that even
Mr. Clinton's relatively modest goals cannot be met
without carbon taxes that would encourage switches to cleaner fuels, or stiff new gasoline taxes that
would encourage energy conservation. Mr. Clinton
has rejected that course, in part because he knows it
would be difficult to sell to the present Congress and
in part because he believes that innovation, incentives and the free market can get the job done
without serious economic turmoil.
To that end, he proposes to give industries that
achieve early reductions in emissions "credits"
against the day when firm industry-by-industry
emissions caps take effect. By giving extra credit to
companies that lower emissions quickly, Mr. Clinton hopes to spur innovation and efficiencies and put
the United States on a downward slope as early in
the next century as possible. That is exactly the
slope the country must be on if it is to scale back its
emissions to 1990 levels.
Mr. Cllilliill Ima nlno otnbi'ncod ntlnilici iiiiinv:t
tive idea that could help solve one of the most vexing
problems facing the negotiators in Kyoto — how to
bring developing countries like China and India into
a global system. The developing countnes will not
be legally bound by whatever plan is hatched in
Kyoto. Mr. Clinton's idea is to entice them into the
system with an international emissions trading
program under which rich nations can win further
credits against their targets by helping poorer
nations develop advanced, and presumably cleaner,
methods of producing energy.
The environmentalists and the Europeans will
surely press Mr. Clinton for a more accelerated
timetable before his negotiators arrive in Kyoto.
But that cannot obscure the fact that for the first
time, a President has committed this country to
changing the ways it produces and uses energy.
A Pivotal Vote on Campaign Reform
The effort to reform the nation's corrupt campaign finance system, which ran into Trent Lott's
. parliamentary blockade earlier this month, faces a
minefield this week. In a cynical attempt to thwart
the will of the majority, Mr. Lott plans to bar any
attempt today to offer the McCain-Feingold campaign bill as an amendment to a highway spending
bill now before the Senate. The majority leader
hopes that so many senators want the highway bill
that they will not challenge his obstructionism. This
is precisely the moment, then, for reformers to
stand firm and demand the right to present campaign reform to the Senate and get an up-or-down
vote.
j
The highway bill would keep money flowing for
road repairs and construction across the nation.
Highways are important, but there is no desperate
need tor this measure right now. Senator Tom
Daschle, the Demvratic leader, should keep trying
to attach campaign reform to the highway measure
and any other legislation, as Senate rules allow. Mr.
Lon plans to move today to cut off debate on the
:
THLrSDAY,
highway bill and bring it to a vote, permitting only
amendments that have to do with highways. Supporters of campaign reform should vote against the
debate cutoff.
Some Democrats are said to be ready to retreat
on campaign reform in the waning days of this
Congressional session. They are under pressure
from governors, mayors and other local officials
who want money from the highway bill. Still other
Democrats are assuring each other that they have
already proved their support for campaign finance
reform, and that it does not really matter if any
legislation is enacted in the end.
This is no time to waver. Mr. Lott needs to
round up about 10 Democratic senators to reach the
60 votes necessary to cut off debate. Mr. Daschle
thus needs to rally all 45 Democratic senators to
block Mr. Lott's gambit. Most Americans want this
legislation. A majority of senators have indicated
they would vote for it, given the chance. After the
worst political scandals in a generation, Congress
should at least have that chance.
OCTOBER 23, 1997
�In America
[TJiy-for the workerTstracing' agilhst
' United Parcel Service, and overwhelming public support for an increase m the minimum wage. Last
fall we saw Republican Congressional candidates sprinting away (rom
Newt Gingrich and the harshest elements of the conservative ideology.
And in the past two Presidential elections we have seen che so-called Reagan Democrats, as worried as anyone about the economic uncenainties. returning to the fold to vote for
Bill Clinton.
A recently published book, 'The
New Majority: Toward a Popular
Ir's not more than a stirring at the Progressive PollU^" argues that
moment, like a soft breeze that her- an opportunity existS-fet^the Demoalds a charge of seasons. But it's
cratic Party to regain thestrpp<i£Tof
there. It's happening.
a solid majority of the electorate
TTie conservative hold on the na- re-establish Ing its traditional identitional electorate is loosening.
fication with the struggles and aspiThe so-called conservative revoluAmertcani — tho
tion has more or less exhausted it- rations of workingworking class und
self. It has led Us mark, but Lt has middle class, tho
also left a majority of Americans to the working poor.
The book was edited by Stanley B.
face the 21st century with the unsetUing sense thac they are on their own Greenberg, a pollster and former
when it comes to such potentially adviser to President Clinton, and
ovenvhelming matters as earning a Theda Skocpol, a professor of govliving, raising a family, sending their ernment at Harvard. It's a compilachildren through college, canng for tion of essays by progressive (get
aging parents, securing adequate used to that word) thinkers, mcludhealth care and providing for their t ing the historian Alan Brinkley: the
own retirement in an increasingly president of the Economic Policy Ininsensitive and unforgiving global , stitute. Jell Faux, and the sociologist
economy.
William Julius Wilson.
The conservative philosophy tells
The book points out that while we
these workmg Amencans to forget have been in an economic recovery
about turning to their government for several years now, the gams are
for help. There is nothing to be done. not being properly shared. Most
are in a new era In which giant working Amencans — despite a
corporations rule the economic booming economy and a recent modworld according to the merciless dic- est upuck in wages — are either
tates of a free market The beat the treading water economically or slowgovernment can do is get out of the ly sinking.
way.
A poll taken not too long ago
Not surprisingly, this cynical, self- showed that 60 percent of whites. 58
serving and ultimately Inhumane ap- percent of blacks and 55 percent of
proach is increasingly being seen as Latinos say that, "compared to 10
unsaclsfactory. The conservative years ago, they are now farther
revolution has not raised the standard of living of most Americans, has away from attaining the American
threatened such cherished and hard- dream."
Very few of 'those respondents see
won supports as Social Security and
Medicare, and has not come up wixti their interests being well served by
i game pltn for addressing the the Republican Party, the conservaeconomic and cultural challenges tive Ideology or the corporate juggernaut The question ts whether the
ahead.
Ever so subtly, ever so warily, die Democratic Party can get its act
American gaze is drifting to the left. together, and seize the opportunity to
Let's not get crazy. We're not talking fashion this:new majority. It can do
about a paradigm shift. And God so only by addressing in a compelling
way the real-world concerns of working families.
Right now both parties are stumbling around Washington in a dance
of mutual incoherence- The Republican leadenhip is feuding and the top
Democrats are docking subpoenas
and hiding from special prosecutors.
If there are any good ideas around,
they are being carefully concealed.
Which Is a shame. Because there Is
a new majority that Ii just waiting
forbid wej&oul(hae the term liberal. for responsible, progressive leaderJJur'aUtireut "progressive" is O.K. ship.
•
Whatever the terminology, the evidence seems to be there. We found
rhat there was a great deal of sympa-
BOB HERBERT
A
Revolution
Subsides
:
Conservatives'
hold on the nation
begins to slip.
THUPSDAY, OCTOBER 23,1997
ForeigrrffTfalrs
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
A Crude Story
K'J'J.-MT
Follow the oil.
Just north of here. Iraqi refineries
near Basra are producing tons of
gas-oil used to fire power plants.
Almost every day, small pirate vessels hugging the Iranian coast shoot
up into the Shan al-Arab waterway
near Basra and load up on this Iraqi
Hos-oll. which tho Iraqis noil the pirates at bargain prices. These small
vessels — always staying just Inside
the shallow Iraqi or Iranian waters,
where the larger U.S. Navy ships
maintaining the U.N blockade on
Iraq can't get at them — then sail
back down the Persian Gulf. Along
the way the pirate captains, carrying
wads of cash, pay off various Iranian
admirals and Revolutionary Guard
naval units to gain free passage
through Iranian coastal waters.
When the pirate boats reach the
southern end of the gulf, they wait for
when the U.S. Navy isn't around and
then shoot across from Iranian waters into tht United Arab Emirates
or out into the Indian Ocean. In either
place, they load their gas-oil onto
larger tankers that take it to market.
Iraq makes money. Iran makes money, the pirates make money.
Ain't capitalism wonderful?
This pirate trade is only one small
way in which the geo-economtca of
oil is working against the U.S. sanctions on Iran and the U.N. blockade
on Iraq. The even bigger story is
this: There are today five great
lakes of oil in this pan of the world —
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq. Iran and
the Caspian Sea in Central Asia. The
way international oil companies
make their big money is by entering
into production-sharing agreements
with oil states. That is. the oil company assumes the risk of exploring and
developing a country's oilfields, and
then shares in Its production until the
field is dry This way the oil company
has a steady flow of crude for years
to pump, refine, ship and market,
profiting at each stage.
But such deals are rare these days.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia booted the
companies om in the 1970's in order
to develop their own oil. They use
foreign oil companies purely as technical advisers. Russia. Azerbaijan
and Turkmenistan, along the Caspian SQQ. have been ready to sign production-sharing agreements to get
that oil out, but because they are
lighting over who will get what share
and where the pipelines will run, the
Caspian remains locked shut.
That leaves Iran and Iraq. Both
thest countries unders'.sr.d •j.-ha*. -.r.e
oil companies want, and ;hey are
ready to give it co them. The deal jus:
signed between Iran and the French.
Russian and Malaysian oil companies
is a production-shanng agreement for
them to search for gas in Iran's huge
South Pars offshore gasfield. You ca.n
set the allurf. the oil companies ge:
th« kind of deal they've no: neon m :ho
Middle East since the ISfTO's. and
Iran, whose oilfields are rundowr.
gets technical help from the bes: on
companies and a thumb :he eye :z
U.S. sanctions to boot. For now. Ira,-i
Iran and Iraq try
an oil come-on.
is limiting these producnon-shar-jig
deals to offshore fields But if Ira.n
were to ofler on-shore deals, and ;t's
only a matter of time, every oil company in the world would be salivating
Not to be outdone, Saddam Hussein has signed production-sharing
agreemtnti with French. Russian
and Italian oil companies that give
them the right to develop certain
Iraqi fields the minute U.N. sanctions on Iraq are lifted — thus turning the oil companies into an international lobby on his behalf. "The
Iraqis are offering us incredible
splits — 60, 70 percent for the oil
companies." one executive told me
That explains why France and Russia are resisting U.S. efforts to tighten U.N. sanctions on Saddam.
You need to spend only a few days
in Kuwait — hearing from some of
the 600 Kuwaiti families who had
loved ones abducted by Iraq during
the invasion and never accounted for
by Baghdad, or visiting the rewly
rebuilt Kuwaiti oil fields that Iraq
gratuitously set ablaze, creating a
mammoth ecological disaster — to
be reminded why Saddam is such a
menace and why the sanctions on
Iraq need to be maintained.
Unfortunaiely. the geo-economics
is pulling the other way. Powerful, oildriven forces are building against the
U.S. sanctions on Iran. And Saddam is
clearly hoping that if and when the
Iran sanctions collapse, those on Iraq
will fall next. No wonder Kuwaitis like
to tell American visitors. "Tbere is
no cosmic Justice. You got Mexico and
Canada as neighbors, and we got Iron
and Iraq."
L
�FINAL
11
10
RNC Steered Funds
To Outside Groups
An Oii-Baae
World Series
I'h-
I!..-
(J,.,,!,'
.1.1..
Clinton Details Global Warming Plan
Gilmore Surges to Lead I
Over Bever, Poll Shows
B r a o t t t r t u r t IkTTf i r . ~ T
fifl* ( d v i n u K m W i i h . n i r n . n.th
y r w . . i n . D l i n io ntuiy u h u -.ui
iftf v«fl,tl« u n m i l » H I rM.c-r.ii
nunflrtdl of dolUrt I - i w C . - - . ' f
m i c r t u r t douM* i M u i Ui» Dt
c m i ardibiliPT. Uif set
*jid (lihou|h bryrt n i l it*-.
niinrolhiifllaruliintcuiiM.,
ima) - w « i vn Htncbnf IttiuW
> br p w i n r i n i Cilmorr •>
_ _ _ _ _
_
i n n > U r_ f . [ w c t n i i f r ol
f
<a(fn k f r t t vith Uir RtpuBlh'
t
.ncu»Md
in h i j M M
Yiiimii
>ll .ndiLiifd
d Cilmoir
n m io <l
yona mr M:I I n i i / r " ol t n or ol"
ll T V Rfpubl-cin
o r n n [ c n t r i l Irom
T>if poUfoundUiu U i h i u c n
- o w n U m p r r w r v m i l«f il K
w iboiwn. Lh/n-lo.rlh. • w W
S«fOtLAl(.C«l.
Bank to Pay
S58 Million in
Age Bias Case
Panel Outlines Protections
For Health Care Consumers
Commission Would Guarantee Patient Choices
First Union LayvffsAfier
Two Mergers Led to Suii
b, u v - i t
"
BrAmyGaKlitm
div ouilmH 1 brwd l«1 ol prolrc
T h t p r o w ^ J '")<
noni lor coMumtn I r u i u i t f d
t
(irw r o n t i a f ou.i i
t m n i i n i brilUi u r * l y U t m pro- . a . v t r j * jjni-i—m.
pounf itiM pititnti bt g u i o n i t f d i
u u ' f i ol iiw.n.icp
cho.t* of n r d K i l p i u l mart mlor
l u i h . n 3.-.
m i u o n i o i m k i untri Oenuoni w d
m i l ior iinnili. i...
o n w i n io proMW * n t n m»y br-T.»i t * I f ( . i ' o . v
m i u f f jood mrii
r r u i i ol a sywi. on
> htilihtjr.n
-'
1 S U i mi
i f r t c m c n i itMKnni i 1*»IU.I lilrd
By ferrrrr ^umiifTon i r n biniui'f
ftnplo>rri u u n n
futi
Umoii
Corp. tnr njiwn i u n h . U f c m
Pit wmtmtni -ill b« di>.dfd
imoni U S iormtr c m p l o r m o<
T i n l f j n t w i ind Mrnror Binki
A'ot Quite a Neighborhood
RoiclcMLijKinmili Slill Ha.-.n'l AI-IUL-VWJ J 'Living Downlown'm D C
E k p . r i . >.. w k g < % r
diwnm.ni
(w onri.lt((OIUr inioum m l n c n j l i
buv.nr.--. h i u l . ..i inr
J I ...
t
" ^ 1 ,
^ . . . n , ^ ^
- j . M-I on ih» rool of i r f . - i " l » t i » l A . f . i j f h i l i n » r
S.lliounicd i f i m x idf - u n , * ! jn i « i r m M M i n f in n r l y
Wlun.n >M ih,. WilA.Mtiar Monmiirnl Q w r l"» W U r
p U f T f i i h o y U f r « u Mir Cap.io' dwmt S u l i i h i n i in ihr
E
�Dangerous Sparks in Kosovo
Events in Kosovo are proving the adage that
those who make peaceful revolutions impossible
make violent ones inevitable. Kosovo is a region of
Serbia where a tiny Serbian minority has governed
the Albanian majority in brutal apartheid style
since Slobodan Milosevic revoked the region's autonomy in 1989. Recently some Albanians, frustrated that politics is getting them nowhere, have
turned to ottnckB on pnllce ntntlnnn nnd othrr nymbols o( Serbian power. Serbian authorities respond
with indiscriminate repression. To keep the peace in
Kosovo, the United States and its European allies
must do more to help restore the rights of the
Albanians there. A peaceful Kosovo Is crucial because violence could spread to neighboring areas.
Belgrade politics is one reason for the new
violence. The extremist Vojislav Seselj, a Milosevic
creation who would now be president of Serbia if low
turnout had not annulled recent elections, said a few
divisions of Serbian fighters would take care of
Kosovo, which Serbs hold as the cradle of their
history. His nationalism has pushed even moderate
Serbian politicians into inflammatory statements.
The leader of Kosovo's Albanians, Ibrahim
Rugova, has called for Kosovo's independence but
has been a tame, ineffective opponent of Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Rugova's moderation pleases Washington,
which favors only restoration of Kosovo's autonomy
inside what is left of Yugoslavia. But his inability to
improve life in Kosovo has inadvertently encouraged Albanians to try violence.
Washington, which has promised to keep economic HOnctlonn nn Sorbin until Koaova'a dghlrj tnr
restored, has done the most to help, but it is no
longer enough. A year ago Mr. Milosevic agreed to
education reforms that would allow teaching in
Albanian. Nothing has happened. Washington must
Increase Its pressure on Belgrade to carry out this
and other reforms, especially ending arbitrary jailings and beatings. There is virtually no foreign
presence in Kosovo. Monitors are needed, and an
American special envoy to Kosovo.
There is some hope. In a rare instance of
dialogue. Kosovo and Belgrade students met for the
first time last week. Politicians have also held talks,
but Mr. Milosevic's party boycotted them. Kosovo's
misery will end only when real democracy, free of
Mr. Milosevic's control, comes to Serbia.
Failing to Protect Children
A court-appointed panel of experts has shown in
devastating detail how wretchedly New York City's
child wellare system has been performing. The
city's Administration for Children's Services,
charged with protecting abused and neglected children, has routinely left them to languish in dangerous homes where many are abused again.
The experts, approved by the city, were appointed by Federal District Court Judge Robert J.
Ward to provide an objective evaluation of the child
welfare system after Children's Rights Inc. filed a
lawsuit charging the city with failure to protect
abused children.
The panel's report examined 242 randomly
selected cases where city caseworkers had found
credible evidence of abuse. In more than 40 percent
of these cases, new Incidents of mistreatment were
found after city oversight began. In 30 percent of the
cases that were closed, caseworkers had failed to
insure that the child was safe or that the family had
received appropriate services to reduce the risk of
future abuse.
Contact between caseworkers and the children
THUPSDAY,
was infrequent and in many instances nonexistent.
In 30 percent of the cases, caseworkers did not see
the children they were supposedly monitoring for
the entire six-month period of the study. More than
40 percent of the parents who needed drug treatment or mental health care never received such
services. Basic case plans, assessments of future
risk of abuse and documentation of home conditions
were often missing or incomplete.
Commissioner Nicholas Scoppeua, brought in
by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to overhaul the child
welfare system, has begun to reduce caseloads, hire
hundreds more caseworkers, improve their training
and root out the incompetents. But those changes,
which were instituted in December 1996, had little
chance to affect the findings of the panel, which
looked at cases in the system from July 1996 to
February 1997.
City officials fought to keep the report confidential until the lawsuit goes to trial in March. They
nrgued that mnking Ihe study public wmdd dcmoraltee caseworkers Bul ihe bigger worry is lhat
Mr. Scoppetta's reforms may prove too modest.
OCTOBER 23,1997
�ECONOMY
Clinton Proposes Global -Warming Plan
r
«s_
fill
ra
o
c
so
^ =• f»
:
M
K
I.lll^il1?iilis= |f,l
,
s
D
>
iiiiiii^i^Miim
m
O
o
H
C
C
O
m
p
o
i-5 ?M
se
l § ° 3 f S S ES^Hif^s^ 5|sg-*Sii f l a i l ' s IS
5ii?g-|
iiBiH-;s=£ii?sis«iii S8
B
3
U5i
1
5
s_
lisfiiiiiiiPiiii
311 l ! l l l S l ^ I l | | | ^ P
3 "
»D ^
T
UHHII ifllflif IWii'-l;
�1907
».s s £ s »
c
^ „ b. E ' - o j a
0
= & 8 = n
b
itllilifiiillill!
as
si
8 g
2
g
�By Joby Warrick ajid Peier Baker
* i u i , n j u n Pan s u i i W m t n
President Clinton pledged yes;e:day to "harness ihe power of the
iree market" for a multipror.ged
aisault on greenhouse-gas polluiion. outlining a package oi incen•.i'-ei and modes, "jrgeis he says
;o-nter globj! Aar.r.irig xhne
Ji.o-ii^^ busmesies to prosper.
C/nion released long-a-Aaiiec
details of his climate change policy
.n a speech lhat drew skepticism
abroad aad condeamaoons from
both ends of the U.S. poliocai specirum But others praised the president for committing to a serious, ii
cauuous. plan lor addressing what
many sciendsts see as the planet s
greatest enviromnental threat.
"TVe must begin now to take out
our insurance policy on the future."
Clinton told about 400 invited gov-
=5
o
-a
.3
05
s
O
I
s
"S •I
ernmeni officials ana guesis at ihe
National Geographic Society. He
sajd global warming "is real." and
ihe "consequences, sooner or later,
will be destructive for Amenca and
for the world."
Clinton ouOined a strategy that
beginning in 1998 would offer S5
billion in Lax breaks and other
incentives tc U.S companies ;o
encourage rapid improvements in
luel efficiency and spur the development of new "clean-energy"
technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He aJso
called for an iniernaDonal emissions trading system that would
earn credits for companies that cut
pollution, and he promised further
reductions under an ambitious restructuring of the electric utilities
industry
But the specific goals and dmeSeeWARMlNC.A6.Col. 1
WARMING, FromAl
tables he proposed for cuttiiig ioterQaoooal emiuioQs fall far short of
what some sdeatists and many env>
roometuilista uy are needed. They
alto ar^ considerably leu ambitious
than tHe propoialt proffered by other industrial powers.
The president's plan calls for stabiImng the industrialized world's output of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases at 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012-foUowed by
further, unspecified reductions by
2017. The European Union, by contrast, favors limiting emissions at 15
percent below 1990 levels by 2010.
Talks are underway this week in
Bonn. Germany, to try reach an
agreement on an internatiooal plan
to be signed ui December in Kyoto.
Japan. The treaty would set mandatory ceilings on emissions by nations
around the world and impose penalties on countries that fail to comply.
Some busmess ana laoor groups
The proposal falls short of the
say that even the relatively modest goals that Clinton outlined m 1993,
restrictioDs sought by Clinton would when he called for voluntary cuts in
stracgk the economic growth, raise
energy prices and put miliions of greenhouse gas emissions to 1590
people out of work But Climon said levels by 2000. The administraccn
hjs program would actually boost the says that goal is not longer possible
economy by increasing efficiency' _ because the economy has grown
and creating opportunities for new more rapidly than expected.
Some environmentalists said ihe
products and markets.
incentives for immediate cuts :r.
"If we do it nght. protecting the
greenhouse gases in the new propes
climate will yield not costs, but profits, not burdens but benefits, not al more than atoned for any shortsacrifice, but a higher standard of comings m the proposed pollunon
ceilings and timetables.
living." he said.
The president's proposal puts the
White House offidals portrayed
the policy as "bold" and a "win-win," United States in the thick of the
negotiations rather than on the
saying the tax breaks, flexible guidelines and other inducements would fnnge." Michael Oppenheimer. ar.
minimize the negative impact on atmospheric physicist with the Enviindustry and result in deep reduc- ronmental Defense Fund. "For the
tions m pollunon before the manda- first time there is a good chance oi a
constructive outcome at Kyolo "
tory limits even kick in.
Soil, with less than two months
Officials said the plan does not
remaining before the Kyoto coaiermandate any increase in energy
costs, but they acknowledged that ence, the administration faced a diffiprices for gasoline and other fuels cult task m closing the gap between
could rise. The administration re- its proposals and those of its Europeleased no economic analyses show- an and Japanese alLes.
Administration officials found bctie
ing what impact binding targets
might have, saying it is virtually encouragement in a new proposal bv
impossible to predict the effects 13 developing countries, which yesterday
called for cuts even more ambitious
year* into the future.
But congressional and industry than the Europeans'—while essencalopponents said Clinton's proposed iy exempting themselve^ from any
"cure" would be far worse than the binding limits in the near future.
A statement by the "Group of : r
disease—if global warming is indeed
a threat at all. A coalition represent- countries in Bonn sought commiting oil companies, electric utilities, ments from wealthier nations for a 35
automobile manufactures and farm percept reduction, in greenhouse
groups have launched a muldmillion gases by 2020. It said poorer coundollar advertising to generate oppo- tnes should be compensaied for ecosition to a treaty in Kyoto.
nomic hardships that might result
The Clinton-Gore global dimate from efforts by the -West to cut
plan threatens the quality of life for pollution at home.
all Americans." said Rep. E James Clinton, in his speech yesterday,
Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). He said said the United States would insist
the restrictions would "result in on partidpation by developing counhigher energy prices for workmg tries as a condition for signing my
Americans and send U.S. jobs overglobal treaty on greenhouse gases.
seas."
But he gave no specifics.
But some business groups—espe"Exactly what partidpation will
cially those representing alternative
energy technologies—praised the mean is obviously whatour guys are
president's plan. "This is a meas- going to be doing in Kyoto," said
ured, appropriate action plan, given White House economic adviser
what we know about global warm- Gene Sperling.
ing," said Terry Thorn, senior vice
president of Enron Corp. of Houston. FOR MORE INFORMATION-^
More than a dozen senior executives representing such companies To read recent remarks from White
as Nike Inc. Bechtel Group Inc. and House officials on global warming,
Mitsubishi Motor Corp. have en- click on the above symbol on the front
dorsed a newspaper ad running this page ofThe Post's Web site at
week that calls for "strong leader- wwwi washingtonpost. com
ship" by the United States on climate
change.
Reaction among environmental
groups was mixed. Several mainstream groups thai were prepared to
endorse tbe presidents package
were deeply disappointed when the
final details became public. The air
went out of the balloon," said John
Adams, executive director of the
Natural Resources Defense Council.
The president has recognized
that the global warming train is
bearing down on the planet But the
policy announced today will not go
nearty far enough to get us out of
harm's way,' Adams said.
�san. to avoid uking monev direc-Jv
from the P.SC
In September 1996 the RNC gave
the Amencan Defer.se inscr-te
s O 000 from its ou-n funds but the
oO
grou? returned the parrv s donation
MCDMIICI said y-sterday. beewse
we did., i want to be ccntrcvcrsia]
and we had funding from other
sources"
Pederal Election Commission reports show that the RNC monev was
returned on Oct. 29. several davs
after a bundle of six donor checks
totaling S530.000. was sentfromthe
RNC to the group.
The checks came from some of
RNC Steered Funds
To Outside Groups
SI Million-Plus Was Passed From Big Donors
By Ruth Marcus
Republicans erupted with critiasm earlier this year after reports
that Democratic National Committee
In tht closing w^tlts of the 19%
campaign, the Republican National officials md Harold Ickes. then
Comminee steered more than SI White House deputy chief of staff,
J?™?' , ' "
' including
million :n contributionsfromits ma- directed given to groups they S150.000 from John Moran. Dole's
jor donors to sympathetic outsid- thought would help boost Democrat- finance chairman in the 1996 camic turnout in 1996.
paign, and S100.000 each from long,
froups collecting the checks at the
Democradc and Republican elec- nme GOP donor Max M. Fish-r
RNC and then passing them on to
the other organijatlons. documents tion law experts said yesterday that Enterpnse Rent-a-Car founder Jack
obtained by Senate investigators party officials are allowed to solicit C. Tayior and a foundation started bv
and even serve as conduits for contn- Mhonaire investor Kirk Kerkorian.
show
budons to outside groups as long as The other donations were 550 000
The documents, obtained last the groups don't coordinate their from a foundation controlled bv former defense secretary Donald
••if ek from the campaign of former activities with the political parties.
senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kanj bv But the GOP-generated donations
Rumsfeld and S30 000fromHouston
to the outside groups allowed the
the Senate Governmental Affairs
oil executive PatnckR. Rutherford
Committee, demonstrate that then- party's backers to give additional
sums that would help the party with- ,„ ' l
."
acknowledgment
RNC chairman Haley Barbour and
deputy finance director Jo-Anne Coe out having them publcly reported. to each individual as well as a receipt
Having the donors give directly to for their use in claiming deductions
tapped big GOP donors to make
the groups also kept the full amount
large contributions to the outside of the GOPs help to the outside on their tax returns." said a letter to
Se'checks^"'
'' ™
groups. Unlike political parties, such organizations from being disclosed
In addition, an internal memorangroups don t have to disclose where Internal RNC documents show that
their money comes from or how they offidals there were highly sensitive • dum dated Oct. 17, 1996. refers to
spend it.
3500.000 Haley obtained from
to donors' concerns about keeping
The groups included the National the full extent of their contributions Phdip Morris" for the institute.
McDaniel said yesterdav that the
Right to Life Committee, an andabor- from public view.
tion group that was heavily involved
The checks, which were made out group received that amount from the
in voter education projects in the to the groups rather than to the RNC
tobacco company and that Barbour
1996 campaign, and Americans for were in addition to the large sums
could have" helped solicit it.
Tlx Reform, which made 4 million the RNC separately gave directlv to
Barbour was traveling yesterday
phone calls and sent 19 million the groups at the end of the 1996 and unable to return telephone calls
pieces of mail urging voters to dis- campaign, induding S650.000 to the
miss Democratic warnings aboul National Right to Life Committee said his aide, Ed Gillespie Philip
Morns did not respond to a request
Medicare cuts.
and S4.6 million to Americans for
tor comment on its involvement.
The documents show that Coe Tax Reform, run by GOP activist
McDaniel said his group was "trupassed on checks for S100.000 each Grover Norquist
ly apolitical- and had asked for monto the Right to Life Committee and
RNC spokesman Clifford May
Amencans for Tai Reform from Carl said of the program: This party has eyfromboth parties. Asked whv theLindner of the Amencan Financial an interest in these organizations RNC provided him with so much ,
Group, a major donor to both parties being successful. We help them. financial support McDaniel saitT
Maybe they think it helps them "
The biggest beneficiary of the
GOP program was the Amencan There's no reason not to. These are
Defense Institute, which runs a voter independent organizations, and we
turnout program for military person- had no input into how this money
nel, who tend to vote heavily in favor was spent"
Asked why Coe had checks from
of Republican candidates.
donors sent to her to pass on to the
groups rather than having the doS-RNC.AlS.CoU
- nora contribute directly to the orgaRNC, FromAl
nuations. he said. "She was raising it
so I guess the protocol was to give it
Tbe milittry-oriented group re- to her to get to them. The RNC wants
ceived aromid SI million, including
5500,000 that Barbour solicited from these groups to know we support
Philip Morrif. the documents show. them. That doesn't mean we haw
Amerion Defense Institute presi- nray over them. They're independent Eugene B. -Red' McDaniel said dent groups, and what they're doing
that TO close to the full cost of the is going to be philosophically similar
to what we're doing."
voter turnout effort
In the case of the American Defense Institute, the contributors were
able to deduct their gifts as charitable donations on their tax returns.
Normal political contributions aren't
tax-deductible.
The contributions from the RNC
donora also allowed the group
which bills itself as strictly nonparu5 b
a S e
s e
s g
d
t d o , , o r s
a n
J
l c c o m
!
a n
�EC
CINCINNATI
LINES UP
TO BUY
HUSTLER'
MILLIONAIRE
NFL STARS
COUNT THE
PENNIES .c
OPP-THS-RACK
TH*T
SUITS?
JuST WEASS
APg caijQAL.-JGT
s
THEY
CHEAP
_
! BEN CRENSHAW
™ . ^ ' — ^ NAWD CAPTAIN OF
•=
RYDER CUP TEAM ic
TODAf
?L-VNT C'PE^S 3TCP= 20
V C A R S * n - = R T 3 : A L 3*
BOOKS: BASEBALL
INSPIRES DORIS
KEARNS GOODWIN » -»
N a 11N THE U S A . . . FIRST IN DAILY READERS
Baseball's TV ratings: How low can they go?
THURSDAY, OCTOBEB a. 1997
sum.
NEWSLINE
.
GAMES
T o d a y 8 2 0 3 rn.
.
E^"
STREET:
j m t
irKTum
• • w
11 in-vtar • • w r ? tana f t K n a n w 4 . i » .
US
•Pw J w i a s « » « n O M l u r f
RaTM.on
SBC h a 1 K O
« r a * p i Ihrw
p m t t T h t » l l « m . Itnr : H i * * n f « tor M
Mruiqimtonuruprt i W S m a .
a
fa- t c - ' r - z x i
mat M M W I ) a n innei T C :
• ^ . - O •1*0 cWALL
LI* ]«< p i t m
ineStrtMMbUl i i i d i o i n
» o r a . u n i • (op u
an
n N B A f l r t i d 111 T>t V S u x r
T^e i v c n ^ m i n t for U
BcwL (ft. NFL c U m m m i p p m c » a • » J
0n« n o n p p « m n p i X M i i B ) t a . 0 « TV htuBeHolili
BMttal! rvaop
D K A m • Hump ler y n n O M t r v m
,mir(i-e—
i f v ^ C r j M . ^ o f B3D0 K
arid S m *
««r-K
v
n o o t . i.«.4C
CONFEDERATE FLAG: i - n m * « u m *
Emissions plan - under warming
fire
Ointon global
; proposal pleases no one
BIACKFUGHTAM™
u-cof-i o M "we t p n t i u t * w
i w w Ltwi
Bill on
land use
" suits OK/d
M a r
FUND-RAISING PROBE: ten... ammxM
Virginia governor's race
TODAY'S DEBATE; M a t
(
m uu
TODAY! ( V M M . - T t * I m . D w t m t r n w m * • I]
TiUMVC-tr-O*? t n « I r
• -MieTwotlBncionJ. .
ln.1 N d p n m t M . .
u n c u n i is U w i UlB in
• oc*nan« iy««m n w i s o a y ' J U D O t w p *
M O N E Y : L o o n u n i B n « « m i d M m j u n r n k . IB.
,
•BM,F» ii»f itfiii*quwi»»»ioalB.
l
I
W
»TnJiMioeborchwmmwfaa'MMyMgmA.r
j
SPORTS:
•
SteMMMfMCaRipMtMltaftB.JJC
• J t u • i n u k v j f w M v t A J M n . n n . N T . In F o a a J C
UFE:
N ^ ^ n t e ^ M M M .
tUlftn t n
M U M
I
tCIXiiBxlllntcsmMparoukmtnmwi.31
• Cductaon roup tMn preitmn o l » . yrmr. JD.
i tm
,
COMING FRIDAY
: Which witch? f
1
C o m a T ^ # ' . D . <o
1 T i x n oi * M S tr>ng
Growing middle-class
isn't fleeing to suburbs
Bytilm.
D w u BUI b • M K k ir
w m iTMd*._
TT*. n n M 1 t mM b b u n n d *
i l lnn nd
_ _
Inside
USATOCW
10 U i . USA lor Uit E u r r n w n
Union, w . It w«uM f * dlflcuit
to r w a n a l a Uw U i tftd EM re.
pan v r e m u Mfw. D*«nM r - h n I m l t r t i r r « f t i &*Sn
T M M d a MOMiwua
m
^ET/pto
M Minn
un
of p«cnMpwitrwBrlOil:
MI praooM 1 vtwet ot
»
T
COVER STORY
rr
^'2^^ ™*<r
in
Kyow,
/IPML
OCTp.lt V - l i l t
OOIWl'
ion. 11 H o n e D r m o c r m
o i n « H ) R c p u a n a r u 10 mc-
TUVl
a i m d r t r t u n d t r w^rtaCe-.
n a n y w d r i f t thai a p w r n a l .
O u w . ) Pkn ako s i b Wr
i M r l y w i
t feral tneacw in 1 ifcwimiii
Dmtt
rWL H. tut fiM wltt, * bVTtr. Mn
rwg chit. m ud «n ttoui IH0.W
* ymr
MM
USA SNAPSHOTS*
p r w up, T
M W
)>Mr M im \n 0aa.*m cmtty in. MI
m i
« iv
r.
i m M In I M -
U M f b t UM
PIMM M
U *
PH M a
<«IMp o m
Untreatable TB an 'emergency'
1 What's rt all about?
• M l »i*iQ «
Ccnid Howire i p o i o m i
o r i h . M i i l o t i i y pe—trr-ji N I
ruxar
C D V O STORY n n t pi
«iefi a » « En-
i n | potni. And J t r r y H a M m u
'Jniwmn M M UM p n M « n
M n II t d e p t M by ( M m o n
nun|
<M W l u r i n g W 1
b w n taond
A r r j w u t f i i n f and
s m n i
BIIM«OM.
TlRM«nianinlKi«)wnon
Of* o * u l
n r p t t n o . 1. M e n t r pwMtc
P l a m TIM M n g i p*UMi in.
•TIM p r w o n « d n i f f M i
i t v TB a - t ( M a i m w r f *
cy." w * R i t M ' d S u m p r w
d r t u f y . i r t t m r ol w l l f f j T
IMenl M r *
House panel fist-tticks IRS reform bill
Muiildnit-i
I (ilpM» in Ui*M, EBOOU
Tfii 0
Cll-
yet njra % i c
w
• •mi'* nl TS w
1
TB. I M M n m
1
1 Mu. i n . Ml Hou
�Emissions plan under fire
[bill n
a
ii!Hlliri
a5§
If*
lb
i
is SlI'Ms'F
1111 *
!
HII
1
§
Willis
HIUs? Si
in*
m
1
3 Rn
B
IP
"1
lis*
1% r:
!fIPs
.11
1*111*11]
li.i iSSl
?1? fiUisS?
USA TODAY • THUHSDAY. OCTOBER 23. 1997
3
ill I llfi
S i!S:; li i | B
:!«!!i^OB8
�Global-warniing plan draws
firefromenvironmentalists
3v Patnce Hill
President Clinton yesterday announced a global-warming plan
requiring a one-third cut in greenhouse gases by 2012 but putting off
for a decade any measures that
could substantially raise energy
prices.
Taking a carrot-and-stick approach, the plan offers businesses
tax incentives and "credits"
against future fees they would
have to pay to the government i f
they improve their energy efficiency right away. The administration hopes that by using existing
conservation techniques, much
higher energy costs can be avoided
in the future.
But the plan was denounced immediately by nearly all sides. Environmentalists said it would not
prevent a dangerous buildup of
greenhouse gases, and business
groups and Republicans said it is
too strong and dishonest in hiding
the higher energy costs that would
be felt by most Americans.
Seeking to strike a middle
ground, Mr. Clinton anticipated
the criticism. While acknowledging that "the challenge we take
on today is larger than any environmental mission we have accepted in the past," he compared
the current universal resistance to
a previous effort by the government to clean up tailpipe emissions
in 1970.
"Many environmental leaders
claimed the standards would do little to head off catastrophe," he
said. "Industry experts predicted
the cost of compliance would devastate the industry. It turned out
both sides were w p n g . -Both underestimated the ingenuity of the
American people.'' *
The president said he is convinced that relatively painless
ways of cutting carbon dioxide
emissions from cars, power plants
and factories can be found without
hurting the economy or significantly raising energy prices.
" T h i s plan p l a y s to o u r
strengths: innovation, creativity,
entrepreneurship." Mr. Clinton
said.
He said the government would
lead the way by cutting regulatory
obstacles to energy conservation,
ipefa'ling solar panels in ferVral
1
r
President Clinton speaks at the National Geogranhic Society >'es:c C?''
aboul measures he wants to take to offset the ettects of gicpa: wa'-n:.-.?.
office buildings and taking other
measures to cut energy use.
His plan represents the United
States' opening bid in international
negotiations aimed at producing a
global-warming treaty at Kyoto,
Japan, in December. Europe and
Japan both have proposed much
bigger emissions reductions while
the third world so far would be
exempt from any cuts.
Mr. Clinton emphasized yesterday that he will not sign a final
treaty unless countries like China.
India and Mexico are "engaged"
and "meaningfully participate" in
the emissions reductions.
Senate critics of Mr. Clintons
negotiating stance dismissed that
pledge as too vague, while Repuolicans in the House called on Mr
Clinton to spell out the stiff measures the government would have
to take if his plan to coax citizens
into conserving more fails.
" I think it is a typical Clinton
administration shell game," said
Rep. Bill Paxon, who believes Congress should not have to wait until
next year to learn the details of a
deal Mr. Clinton hopes to seal in
December.
"You say nice things, it sounds
good, everybody feels good. And
then down the road, we get hit
hard. And I don't think we can afford it. The economy of this country certainly can't. We need honest
answers."
The New York Keputiica:he snll plans tc push a reto'.ux:?.:,
t h r o u g h the House 05211:=::
"stealth" energy-tax increases t.'-.r.i
could be imposed 10 vears /urice
— after Mr. Clinton has left off.:c
— to achieve the dramaLc en-.ission cuts
Environmentalists deplored rl-c
plan as "too little, too late."
"It is not strong enough ro p x
on a safe path for the planet (ar.d
avert a runaway climate."
John Adams, executive director or
the Natural Resource Defense
Council, which like other maid
environmental groups pledirec
push for a doubling 0;' the emi^
sions curs as prupcsi.j !jy .nt Europeans.
Business groupa
tqu -.
unimpresse'J ' U'e uv.o r. i;;:^.-ceptable. U'< tjuing to set a car
greenhouse emi^sior.s t'nc; ;r. .r<
end will result in high gascj^i
taxes or rationing." ssid G ^ '
McDonald, president of the Globa!
Climate Coalition.
About the enly group tha: wiiz
happy was rhe Business Counci:
for Sustainable Energy, -.vhich rsp
resents natural gas, solur c-nenr.
and other industries that stand to
gain from Mr Clinton's push fur
technological change.
"This is a measured, appropriate action plan given what we knem
today about global warming," saiii
Tferry Thorn, senior vice president
of Enrnn Com in Houston.
£f)e lllasljingtmt (Times
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23. 1997
1
ji:
1
k
�Skeptics leery of Clinton day care agenda
•k.'.r.'L'-g- -.ojav E '.Vhue House
tzr.'.ire-.zc or. Chile; Care is ex^ectsc: L3 pu: i.-.e topic ir, the bes:
pcji;rle [igr.t. :'. :s unlikely to
c^.ar.oe -.he minas cf rhose parents
•.in-3 refuse to aid their offspring
to ^mer'.ca's 13 million children in
•2a:- :are.
Tney ir.clude King Fern . N.Y..
ar:is: Amo Parseghian. who, as the
fatr.er of nine whose wife slays at
heme, paints tableaux of a lonely
z r i \ i being left at a curb. They also
include the Fairfax-based Mothers
a: Home, which says parents
•^ould rather have tax breaks and
fa.-nily-fnendly work policies lhan
a nacional day care system.
"Although full-time child care is
a necessity for some families and a
choice for others, it is not what the
majority of America's parents
want for their children." writes
UAH public pohcy analyst Heidi
Brennan.
"Parents want respect and suppen for their decisions about how
:o care for their cfuldren." Mrs.
Brennan says. "Parents don't want
'heir government, influenced bv
;r.e advice of some well-funded
day-care and education interests
or so-called experts' to create and/
or fund expensive 'one-sue-fiuall solutions."
She's referring to proposals put
forth by Edward Zigler, one of the
•.r.vited guests to the White House
gathering. As a psychology professor at Yale University and director
of that university's Bush Center for
Child Development and Social Policy, he advocates a nadonal day
care system costing $75 billion to
$100 billion annuaUy to the American taxpayer.
"[The government] subsidize*
people who go to school," Mr. Zigler says " I don't tee these as taxes
or costs; I see these as investmenu. I'm reluctant aboiit government intrusion, but we dfcn't mind
it when we want our water safe to
drinic or our medicine u f e to take.
"Sixty to 75 percent of family
day care is not regulated and is
underground. Parents are so desperate for child care. As a nation,
we've moved so slowly on thu."
He predicts today's conference
will look favorably on day care
centers reconstituted as "schools
of the 21si century" or "family resource centers." Those would be a
vast improvement, he says, over
months.
•me. they concede how rar? sucr
caregivers are
Mr. Zigler. -x-r.c is releasing
own study of day care four s-.3:;j
— Colorado. Cor.necncur. Cs'.-.io-ma and Nor:h Caronr.j — iayonly 1-1 percent of these :er.:-;r£
were ofhigr. i;ua!:r.- in -;0 per:;--,
of :ne cases, ihe ;are
sc
tha: children's neal*-': ir.z safsr,
were at risk He suggests '„-.a:
caregivers, especially ±ose caring
for children under 3. jjrr.^ir.e
forces with their local elefflen:ary
schools, where ihe> •Aould ge:
training.
At present, 'we have a r.oJge
podge of profits, nonprofits a.-v:
family day care homes: e e r y
study shows we have a very poor
system," he says. "A woman wnt
two of her own kids providing day
care for five others often nas no
training and no support, ^'hat it
she gets sick one day
"I've proposed rak^-.g ai; tne
family day care centers around a
school and using the scnool as a
hub to train and supper', ".hese
women so if one mom gets sick, tne
kids can go to another home "
As for qualifications, a day carcenter under his system would require what he terms a '•chilt! development associate certificate."
"Day care is a cosmi: rrapihoo:
Behind one door is a .•.oncer:-!
woman who will love >our children. Behind another doer, if '.0leave your child .vith that Aoman.
when you come back thai mghi. it
will be dead."
Allan Carlson, president of the
Howard Center for Family. Religion and Society, which is aligned
with the Rockford Institute in
Rockford, 111, rejects Mr. Zigler's
views. Mr. Carlson believes the
government is ignoring the most
recent research on infants.
"What's come up regarding infant brain development and the
need for close human attachments
u the first three years all points to
one conclusion never brought up at
ttfcse [White House-sponsored]
event," says Mr. Carlson, who will
be listening io the White House
conference from a nearby audnonum
More than half of all Amencan
infants less than 1 year old are
cared for by people other than
their mothers.
Proponents of a national day
care system say that parents simply need to select bener caregivers
for their children At the same
receives the full-ume protective
care of its mother, or its two natural parents," he says. "Instead, we
examine strategies on how to expand the day care movement. Because there's an agenda. And that
agenda is social parenting."
1
1
1
New York artist Anto Parseghian s "Daycare" expresses nis distaste for
national crrnd cara — m spue ot having nme children of nis own.
"family day cares" — typically one
woman danng- for her own children plus four or five others
"I've been working with the
Clinton people because they have
to come up with some ininaovM,"
he says. "One will be school-aged
child care, which will solve the delinquency problem."
What he'd prefer, he says, is day
c a n beginning at age 3. Of tbe 13
million children requiring child
care. 6 million of them are 2 yean
old or younger.
T b a t way. every child would get
preschool education and their day
would be as long as the woricdayi
b r mothers and fathers," he says.
"Ther* would be before- and after
school care, as well as summer
1
care for children up to tha age of
12. Thus, you've solved all the child
care needs of families of kids ages
1 through 12"
The jury sull appears to be out
on day care's effect on children.
The National Instituie of Child
Health and Human Developmem.
which is doing a muldyea^ study
involving 1.364 racially and socially diverse children in 10 cities,
said in April that children in day
care test out as less warm and responsive than those whose mothers are at home.
This alienation is most pronounced with children less than 6
months old, the study said. The
more hours they spend in day care,
the fewer "potinve strokes" —
hugs, kisses and praise — they get.
This has broad social implications
because half of all working mothe n leave their infant children in
day care beginning at ages 4 to 6
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1997
"We need to ensure even' mfar.t
�nerce iu .^Dtfp.dmc limits m Chntun and i nue's case:, ah-m Sfil nuliion
:oi ihtf general decnon lasi ^ear
Thompson nc\CT said nulnght that Clmion and Crore had broken ihe
hu' Bui. as excerpts trom recently released White House videotapes
ran on monitors m the Senate mvesticatne lieannp rotim. Thompson.
R-Tetin . said that the Climon campaign had deceived the Ajnencan
public
Ta'-.pavers were lold thac '.n return lor ihc.r mone .. ihe*. sot an
open, above-bnard jp.-sTem or campaign finance proliibitions.
limitations and regulations That was simph not the case in 1 996."
Thompson said. I liunk we have a sham •muauon To tolerate such
olalant mampulatinn oi'ihe s\-s[em uould jierjietuate a ruse on the
•\merican taxpayer"
He said he would soon draft a letier io Atmmev Oenera: .ianet Reno
lavmg out die evidence obtained by the committee and calling on her
to recommend appointment of an independent counsel
Thompson seemed to dehberatelv using cautious lanauaee to
describe the Climon-Crore practices On lue previous occasions, he
has been forced to backtrack from stronc accusations made dunng
comminee heanncs
In essence. Thompson's case re>ts un the view that President Climoibreached the nauon's campaign finance mle-* when lie iaised huge
sum> oi'so-called unregulated "soft mone\' and then directed the
Democratic committee to spend n on teleu^on ads that benefited
campaign.
Under ihe law. -uch unregulated contrihunons can onh be used for
generic advemsmg. or parry-building activities such as
get-out-the-vote drives They can be raised m unlimited amounts, hut
the\ cannot be used to directly benefit a candidate.
Democrats contended Wednesday [hat the practice tlic\ lollowed
was entireK legal because the ads never actually urged persons to vote
for Clinton or Ins Republican opponent Bob Dole Moreover, they
contended that Republicans raised huge amounts of soft money to fund
advertising io benefit Dole's campaign.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Comi., argued that the agreement both
presidential candidates made to limit spending tn e\change for public
funds 'has been so aggressively violated, ue ought to consider
repealing the law."
Reno is currently investigating an arrav of allegations against
Clinton and Gore but has said several times that some White House
fund-raising practices spotlighted m the Senate investigation
including controversial coffees and Lincoln bedroom sleepovers for
donors appear to be legal
Thompson argued again Wednesday lhat the appomlment of an
independent prosecutor is essential because die attomev general has a
conflict of interest in conducting an investigation of the person she
works for
Thompson s iengthv remarks at the opening of a hearing before the
Senate Gnvenimema! Affairs Committee marked the first time that he
has summed up the evidence obtained bv the panel, which frequentlv
has been divided by bitter partisan fighting
Thompson said twice during hi* address that the conmiittee had
made its case that the While House engaged in improper
ftind-raising practices and thai it now is time for Attorney tieneral
Janet Reno to seek the appointment of an independent prosecutor
If the interpretauon of this (Clinton-Gore tiond raising) is that ii is
legal, then we have no campaign finance astern in tins countn
anymore," he said
The committee has a Dec. 3 I deadlme for completing its work, but
Paul Clark, a spokesman for committee Republicans, suggested
yesterday that, while the staff will conunue to work until the end of the
year, it is unlikely that the committee will meet beyond the end of this
month, when Congress is expected to go into recess
1
Clinton's global warming plan lacks details By Robert
A. Rankin Knight-Ridder Newspapers (KRT)
WASHINGTON President Clinton unveiled an ambitious proposal
Wednesday to restrain global warming over the iie\i cennny. a
sweeping pledge thai left many important political and economic
details to be resolved.
Critics attacked the plan's lack of specific-; but the presidem's
promise to reduce air pollution to 1990 levels by early in the ne>a
cenmry is onlv the first step in n long complicated global negotiation.
Clinton's strategy offers no estimates of how much it might increase
energy prices, no details on complex pollution-permit trading schemes
at its heart, and no specifics on what big developing countries like
China would be required to do.
Those missing details underscore the problems Clinton faces in
winnmc cooperation r'rom Congress. And U.S obstacles are onlv "ihe
beginning, for Clinton s plan is the U S. bargaining position for the
global treaty to be negotiated by more than 1 50 nations at a United •
Nations- sponsored conference in Kyoto, Japan, irom Dec. 1-10.
That. White House aides say. is one big reason the plan lacks details
for now. It is intended as a set of principles to guide complex
muliinanonal political bargaining, not as the final blueprint.
The Kyoto conlerence is pan of an ongoing process that '.he world
is going to engage in coming decades," explained Dan Tarullo. a ior
Clinton aide for international economics.
Similarlv. the plan's immediate focus is to challenge b* S. business
and indusir. ;o be^m preparing now for transition steps to a more
energy-efficieni future. Small steps now can yield big results 10 years
down me road.
' it can'i be ruled out lhat there could be some effect on energy
pnces." conceded Gene Sperling, head of Clinton's National Economic
Council The pnce impact will depend upon how successful the plan's
volun tan initiatives tum out to be. he insisted.
Sperling dismissed long-range estunates of pnce hikes hurled by
critics, sav ing. If you want an econometric model to show something
!vears out. vou can do anything you want. We clearly think that if
mis country mobilizes the nght way. that we can get there without
having a signilicam pnce increase."
Critics weren't buving such reasoning Wednesday Busmess groups
assailed Climon s plan as a prescription for economic disaster, while
most environmentalists damned it with faint praise or simplv damned
-
it.
'' We regard this proposal as a one-way ticket to ship .America's
industrial capacity ov erseas." said U.S Chamber of Commerce
President Thomas J Donahue.
"It's all pain and no gain." said Jem' Jasinowski. president of the
National Association of Manufacturers.
Environmentalists were not much kinder
The president has shown some leadership.but not enough
leadership to protect the planet," said John Adams, executive director
of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
This is the Black Wednesday for the climate negotiations." said
Kalee Kreider. director of the Greenpeace USA climate campaign.
Such reactions illustrate the U S political obstacles confronting the
plan Clmion laid out Wednesday in a 24-minute speech to the
National Geographic Society here.
Clinton emphasized that the United States is obliged to lead the
world in seeking a solution to global warming, because ihe councn is
ihe biggest source of the problem, .Amencans are only 4 percent of the
global population, but they pump out 25 percent of so-called
greenhouse gases worldwide
These are gases from industrial civilization pnmanly carbon
dioxide fumes from burning oil. coal and gas in cars, buildings and
power plants that are building up m the atmosphere in a way that
traps the sun's heat.
Most scientists now agree that this " greenhouse effect" will slowly
raise the Earth's surface temperamre over the next cenmry. possibly
resulting in rising sea levels that swamp coastal communities, spread
tropical diseases, disrupt forests and agriculture, and spawn
increasingly severe weather such as droughts,floodsand hurricanes.
SlgnUlcant uncertainties remain over just how much or how fast the
planet's surface may warm, and over what the effects will be. scientists
caution.
As Clinton stood before a symbolic blue globe, he called global
warming one of the most important challenges of the 21st century . "
It is our solemn obligation to move forward with courage and
foresight to pass our home lo future generations," Clinton said. Our
children and grandchildren will thank us for the endeavor."
The president ouilmed a vague, complicated strategy lhat would.
Require the United States and other major industrial economies io
cut their greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels, on average,
between 2008-2012. In ihe following five years, emissions would go
below ] 990 levels, but the plan does not say by how much Under
business-as-usual policies, economic growth is expected to raise U S
emissions by 28 percent above 1990 levels by 2010
Ask Congress to approve nexl year a £5 billion, five-year package of
tax incentives to spur U.S. busmesses to increase energy efficiencies
and to spend more on energy research and development.
Offer next year a '' bold plan" to restructure the U.S. electric utility
industry to spur efficiency and cut emissions.
Develop complex U.S and global syslems for market-based trading
of pollution permits to encourage nations and busmesses to seek
least-cost methods of investing in new technologies that curtail gas
emissions The earlier firms and nations act, the more credits they
�uodd ge: wilder die <\5iei:ia.
'Anile Houac aides presenied Climon'> plan a.s moJeraic. :-e>irained.
practical j*iu geared to promote business iiuiovaiion rather than relv
on heavy-h^iaed government regulation, h .triers iieitliei
' pie-in-me-aky rhetonc" like some en\ iromneiual cniic.-. "nor the
dcuinsaa'. ^enaiios cidiei-' like ^onic ind;i>iiy iiroups. .-aid Kane
McGmr,. head ol'Clinton's Council on Eir- iroiuncnial C'Liahrv
Busuies^ iiroups warn dial Clinton's i;!ohal-warming plan could
cLrive up price? :'or ^asoime. home heal, .md electrxir.
Cappm: emissions ajnounts to enerj;- r.iiionini:." which drives up
consunie:- costs as eriectivd;.
higher cnerjy taxes" .-.aid Donohue v\
the U .S. Chamber
.Amencan families can expect to pav a; least $2,000 a vear bv
2010," under Clinton's plan, said Gail McDonald, president of'the
Global Climate Coaliuon. a group led by utilities, oil and auto
companies 'Returning emissions to I 990 levels by 2010 means
canceling an expected 26 percent increase in America economic
Ljowth
N.AM's Jaainowski welcomed Clinion emphasis on energv
erticiencv.
incentives, and market-based •;oluikms. but concluded.
The adniKiistraiion hasn i pm u all tngcihe: m a wav that :ii:Lkes
sense und uould v\ork. FurtJiennnre. il i-. .i niv>[er. hou an
mtemationai trading regime would erteemdv uork in the complex
global arena '
Key details, such as hovv die trading svstem uouid work and uhat
requirements China and other developing nnuons would lace, are to be
worked out m negotiations over time. 'A"hue House aide^ said.
Not all business leaders were harsh
Michael Mamn. executive direcloi i*l the nusmess L ouncil for
Sustamable Energy' a coalition ui'rene^ank enenr. and namral gas
lirms termed C'luuon'> plan an imponani .md exuenidv modesi
proposal to begin taking steps I'OI coping with global wanning. All in
ali. it s a pretty good package."
Moderate env iromnentaliiis aNo ga\e (. liiuon grudging cicdit
"The targets and luneiable^ ii'nr emission reductions) are not
ambitious enough, but it gets die IJ s u. u itlun the negotiation circle
and gives the Kyoto sessions a good chance to produce a final
agreement, wliich we hope will be more ambitious." said Fred Krupp.
executive director of the Environmental Deiense Fund.
Vice President Al Gore perhaps summed up die ^ituaiion best:
"This problem ha-, been a lone nme in the making, and it v\ill take a
long time to ,M)lve "
1
Clinton's global w a r m i n g plan disappoints both sides
By Susan Feeney T h e Dallas Morning News ( K R T )
WASHINGTON President Clinton on Wednesday embraced the
first-ever binding U.S. reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but his
plan fell short of what environmciitahsts and European nations had
hoped.
.And some U S. business groups including manv oil companies said
the policy for combating global wanning went too far.
The president described his plan as a ' sensible and sound"
approach that would bring "meamngriil reductions" in heat-trapping
pollutants. And he said il would help radier than hurt the U S.
economy.
Clinton proposed reducing induslnalized nations carbon emissions
iu 1990 levels beiween 2008 and 2012 Burning of fossil fuels such as
oil and coal cause most carbon emissions.
Such gasses are suspected of trapping heat in ihe aunosphere.
raising temperatures globally and potentially causing drastic climaie
changes. Industry groups have questioned the science that predicts
such a ensii.
To curb emissions. Clinton would relv largely on existing
technologies and $5 billion in federal tax incentives to businesses ovei
the next five years
The president's 15-year targei is a step back from his 199?, pledge io
reduce such emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.
"Regrettablv. most of us. including especially the United Stales, fell
short." Clinton said
Current U S. greenhouse emissions exceed 1990 levels bv about 7.5
percem If left unchecked, they would surpass 1990 levels in 2000 by
I 3 percent, administration officials said
Wlnte House press secretary Mike McCuirv defended the lunger
tune ifame to get back to 1990 levels
' It would be unrealistic to ailempt to reach bv the year 2000 1990
levels on emissions," he said. '' It would most likeK wreck die world
economy if you attempted to do dial"
The long-awaited presidential policy was issued as U.S. negotiators
took part in talks in Boon. Germany, on an mtemauonal climate
change ireaiy The aim is to produce a nnal accord in earlv December
in Kvoio. Japan.
It is our solemn obligation," Clinton said, '' to move forward with
courage and foresight to pass our home on to our children and future
generations."
European Union nations which cnlicized Clinton's plan as " a big
step in the wrong direction" want the treaty to mandate 15 percent
reductions below 1990 emissions levels as soon as 2005
The White House on Wednesday exphcidv rejected that plan
Climon acknowledged that ihe United States has fewer than five
percent of the world's population but generates 25 percem of its
greenhouse gases. Still, he insisted that developing nations such as
China whose levels of emissions are expected to nse must also
commit to reductions
The United States would not sign on to binding reducuons il'ihe
developing world does not panicipate. Deputy Treasury Secretan
LawTence Summers said
The resistance Clinton faces irom the developing world was evident
Wednesday in comments trom the Chinese Embassy in Washington
We sav the present siruauon is noi the result of China s emissions,
press counselor Yu shuning said.
For his overall approach to global warming, Clinton took a
helping-hand approach rather than a heavy-hand approach.' Summer •
said.
But the president himself predicted, " I know full well that some w;i:
enticizc our targeis and timetables as too ambitious .And. of course,
others will say we haven't gone far enough."
Some environmemaiisis saluted the administration plan for quick
incentives to busuiess to reduce emissions and develop new clean
technologies. Congress, however, must approve the plan for SI bilhor.
a vear over rive years, beginning next fall.
The Senate would have to approve a global warming treatv-.
Other environmentalists applauded the plan to begin in 2008 a
domestic and international permitting process to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions. A similar program, which allows the buying and selling
of emissions capacity, is used to regulate acid rain emissions.
' On balance, it's movmg in the right direction," said Michael
Oppenheimer, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund.
But he and others said the adimmstraiion abandoned m the last 24
hours a promise to back reducing emissions to 5 percent below 1990
levels by 2017.
Whjte House aides denied making any reireat. They said lhat the
president backs additional but unspecified reductions after 2012.
John Passacamando, executive director of Ozone Action, an industr.
coalition favoring the president's plan, said the modest White House
plan would not counter the potentially severe environmental fallout
from global warming. Clinton and Vice President AJ Gore have said
they embraced the most dire predictions.
Lincoln did not free half the slaves. Kennedy did not warn to go
halfway to ihe moon and Johnson did not move Rosa Parks to the
middle of the bus." Passacamando said.
At che other end of the debate, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
among those who question the science behind global warming
predictions
said emissions permitting amounted to "energy rationing" and would
drive up consumer costs.
.An international treaty that does not include developing nations is
'a one-way ticket to sliip Amenca's industrial capacity overseas."
Chamber president Thomas J Donohue said
The American Petroleum InsUtute noted the president's suggestion
of $5 billion in business incentives, but said Clinton '' volunteered
nothing about where the money will come from Is there a hidden tax
in the works?" API said m a stacemeni.
1 he Global C lunate Coalicion, a group ot business and trade
organizations, said die president's plan '' would damage the U S
economv while producing no lasting environmental benefit"
Democrats counter tapes of Clinton with tapes of
�Bm even mediocre care docs not come cheaply Accotdina io a
I 995 census report, families living at or near the povem line ot"
S18.000 per \ ear pav an a\ erage of 25 percent ot' their income for
child care. Middle-class families earning up to $36,000 ^paid on
average I 2 percent of their income on child care.
As might be eNpected. afflueni Americans tend to command
jood-quahr. child care. More une\pecied!\ researchers have found
Lhat the very poor, because of their access to lederall'. funded
protrrams such, as Head Stan, tend to get nretr. good child care as
well
To child-care advocates and to man\ of the nation's most dedicated
child-care workers, the reason for tlie industry's shoncomings is
simple Its consumers parents, communities, and countn-as a whole
may passionately lo\e their children and want the best for diem but
they do not ahv ays know what the best iv .And when faced with
competing prionties. many iust are not willing to pav for it
That s in spite of findings which indicate that the cost of dehvenng
good child care is only about $10 more per week per child dian die
cost of delivering poor child care. And in spite of consistent evidence
showing that two factors teacher training and high ratios of
care-givers to children are the best assurances of qualm.
Currently. -11 states require no training foi child-care workers. As n
result, manv see the kind of training nr decrees that expens believe are
so kev io qualitv dav care as a co^tlv and umiecessarv frill
in manv states, the challenge ol 'meeting nsmg child-cnre demands
has helped spawn a fhirn of innovation nnd those models nre expected
to dominate the agend?. a: this week ^ '.Vhite Hfv.se nieetnisi
Clinton Outlines U.S. Plan to Combat Global
W a r m i n g (Washn) By Elizabeth Shogren (c) 1997,
Los Angeles T i m e s
WASHINGTON President Clinton urged Americans Wednesdav ui
loin him in undertaking the most ambitious environmental mission"
in history, outlining a series of steps he wants die United States to take
in advance of an international accord to combat global warminc.
To make sure the countn does its pan to stabilize greenhouse gas
emissions. Clinton announced plans to revvard companies thai reduce
harmlul emissions ahead of schedule, encourage energy eflkiencv
with $5 billion in tax breaks and research and development, and
develop a trading system that would allow companies lhat reduce
pollution to profit by selling their leftover emission allotments to
others
In a strongly worded speech delivered at the National C^eopraphic
Society , the president warned the nation that failure to mov e
aggressively would put the nation and world in peril.
Many previous threats posed clear and present danger, global
warming is far more subtle, warning us. not with roaring tanks or
burning nvers. but with invisible gases, slow changes in our
surroundings, increasingly severe climatic disruptions thai, thank God.
have not yet hit home for most Amencans.'' Clinton said. But make
no mistake The problem is real, and if we do not change our course
now. the consequences, sooner or later, will be desinictive foi
.Amenca and for the world "
At the same time, Clinton announced the long-awaited I I.S. position
on a proposed international treaty on global warming. In international
negotiations ongoing m Bonn, Germany, the United Stales will seek
binding commitments from all industnai nations to reduce their
emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide to 1990 levels
during the five-year penod between 2008 and 2012. He called for
ftirther. unspeciiled reductions in the followingfive-yearpenod
Current emissions are 7.5 percent above 1990 levels
E:v irenme--! -ovps. which -snted the sdmimstra'— i« set emission target of 5 percent below 1990 for the second tive-v ear
period, criticized the president's effon as too modest.
Unless we get a stronger deal in Kyoto, we will be passing this
burden on to luture generaiions,' said Alden Mever. director of
government relations ot the Union of Concern Scientists, referring to
the Japanese city where mtemationai negotiators will draft a treaty m
December.
Many represemaiives of business groups, meanwhile, warned thai
the president's proposal could starve the American economy
" A 1990 level is a harsh level to meet and it acts like a \ ise" on
economic growth, said Gail McDonald, chief representative of the
Global Climate Coalition, which includes such major industnai and
manufacturing concerns as automakers and power utilities.
Business groups cnticized Clinton for not prov idmg an economic
analysis of his proposals or spelling out how Amencnn industry could
grow while cutting emissions
'' He did not define how we are going to go on this strict energv diet
that will be required to reach the 1990 levels ot'emissions,'' said
Andrew H. Card, president and CEO of the .American Automobile
Manufacturers Association '' Will n be energy rationing, energy taxes,
or a combination of both''"
While Clinton said die United States will not accept binding
restnctions unless key developing nations agree to ' meaninefully
panicipate," business leaders criticized him for not demanding full
panicipation of the developing world
' If it's not global it won't work, and if it's not global, ic will put us a;
a competun e disadvantage and will hurt Amencan jobs," Card added
However, another coalition of businesses said the president's plan is
reasonable.
These targets are extremely modest targets." said Michael Manin
of the Business Council for Sustamable Energy, whose hundreds of
business members include Southern California Gas. ' The average
consumer will not recognize the effects of this." he said
Noting lhat ihe president s proposal'' is being pummeled by the
environmental community for being too weak and . harangued bv the
more iraditional business communiry for being too strong.'' Mamn
said this ' probably means you've got a good compromise posiiion.'
As Clinton spoke, international negotiators in Bonn were in ing to
narrow their differences before the Kyoto conference.
Complicating the .American effon. the large bloc of developing
nations voiced general suppon Wednesday for the European Union's
call for a I 5 percent reduction in emissions In all. about 150 nations
have lined up behind the European proposal, while two others the
United States and Japan, which has proposed a 5 percent cut are
standing apan
But' its hard io overestimate the imponance of the U.S position
because" it spews 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, said
Jennifer Morgan, who is monitoring the Bonn negotiations for Climate
Action Network, a U S environmental group Thus, the impact of any
global warming treaty to which the United States has not agreed
would be severely limited.
The unveiling of the U.S position was a crucial step in the talks For
two years, the administration has essentially put the talks on hold,
saving it needed to analyze additional climate data before determinmg
its favored course
Now. mid-level negotiators have barely a week in Bonn to narrow
their differences before sending the issue to Kyoto.
Officials said crucial details remain to be decided. The strucmre of
the tax incentives, the size of emissions reductions below the 1990
level, and the role for the developing world
Clinton's Choice to E n f o r c e C i v i l Rights Praised
fWashn) By David G . Savage (c) 1997, L o s Angeles
Times
WASHINGTON Los Angeles lawyer Bill Lann Lee, President
Clinton's choice to be the federal government's chief civil rights
enforcer, received a surprisingly warm reception Wednesday from the
Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Comminee.
Consen-atives had hoped to tum the hearing into a showdown over
the Clinton administration s stand on affirmative action, but the
senators instead mostly heard stories of Lee's personal rise from
poverty and his professional dedication to advocating for the poor and
the disadvantaged.
Four senators, including New York Republican Alfonse D'Amato
and Cahfomia Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer,
praised Lee as a consensus builder (and) a healer." not an ideologue
' You might as well enjoy this. There won't be so many good things
abrut yen agam until year funeri!." Sen. Patrick Lschy. D Vt.,
told Lee.
The personal stones, coupled with an unusual endorsement from
Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, appeared to defuse much of the
potential controversy over the the nomination
Chairman Omn Hatch. R-Utah, made clear he disagreed with Lee
over affirmative action and California's Proposition 209 But he also
closed the hearing by saying he intended to push the nomination
toward a vote before the Senate recesses next month
If confirmed, Lee would be the first Asian American to head a
department at the U.S Department of Justice.
Since 1981, the post of assistant attorney general for civil rights has
been a lightening rod for controversy.
President Reagan's civil nghts chief, William Bradford Reynolds,
was lambasted by liberals for seeking to end school busing orders
Senate Democrats later blocked his elevation to a higher post.
�Democrats aiso biocKed President Bu>ii s first nominee for uie post.
Wavne Couim. Mich . Shenfl" William Lucas, on die grounds Uiat lie
had little background in civil nghts law
In 1993, conservatives returned the favor bv attacking President
Clinton's first nominee for the job, law professor Lam Gutmer. as
a "quota queen." .An embarrassed Clinton withdrew her nomiuaiion
before a hearing, could be held.
Conservair.^ actrisi Clint Bolick. who seized under Revtiolds 11
:
the Reagan admmisuatior.. ied the attack vii Guimer Last inontn. he
also attacked Lee's record as one o f .-uppon for racial pret'erences
and forced busing
On Wednesday. Bolick remained opumisuc. saving," I think we
have a shot at defeating (Leesi nomination.
He noted that Lee still viewed Proposition 209 as unconstitutional, a
position Hatch and several other GOP senators said thev could not
accept
In April, me 9th LI S Circuit Coun of Appeals upheld the voter
initiative that bans preferential treatment' based on race, cthmcitv
and gender Lawy ers challenging it have appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Coun. which is likely to act on the issue in earlv November
Lec said he opposed Proposition 209. but assured senators lie would
enforce the law as determined by the Nupremc Coun
The son of Chinese immigrants. Lee told of Ins lanulv's small,
cramped laundry in Harlem. While his mother cooked starch lor shirts,
he and his brotner sorted piles of dirty clothes
He also recounted how ins father returned from serving in die U S.
Army during World War II only 10 be turned awav bv landlords and
employers because he was Chinese.
' My father is mv hero.' said Lee. 4n. '' Bui 1 confess that I found it
difficult for a long time to appreciate his uiulinclung patriunsm m the
face of daily indignity.'
Lee became a civil rights lawyer, he said, to advocate foi ihe basic
principle ill at every person deserves an equal opportumtv 10 wuik. lo
leam and to live "
As a lawyer, mostly recently for the National Association foi ihe
Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund in Los Angeles.
Lee lias earned a reputation as a low-key adulate who fav ors
solutions and settlements over courtrooms and confrontation
Clinton Is Urged to Tighten Scope on Imported
Assault Weapons Ban By J e f f Brazil and Steve Berry
(c) 1997, L o s Angeles T i m e s
Pressure mounted Wednesday from new comers or'Capiiol Hill
urging President Clinton to act much mure aggressivdv in culling off
the flow of imported assault weapons moditied to skirt lederal law.v
A day after the Clmion adnmustration amiuuneed thai ii planned to
ban future imports of modified assault weapons, several members of
Congress exhorted him in a letter to ' go one step ftinher" and stop the
import of 30 oiher models already crossing U.S. borders by die
thousands.
Rep Carolyn McCarthy. D-N.Y . whose husband was slain in 1993
by a man anned with a handgun equipped widi a high-capacity
ammunition magazine, said she signed the letter io Clinion because
the ' will of die people around the couniiy i*. thai we don't need these
weapons on the streets
Just because there are these legal loopholes, that's not following
the inient oflhe law.'' said McCarthy, whose son wa> imuicd 11 die
1
same 1993 attack. We have a hard enough time living to control our
own guns in this countrv from our own manufacturers Would thev sell
those guns in their own counines'.' I doubt it. They shouldn't be
unloading them on us."
The Clmion admmisiraiion is said 10 be debating die scope oflhe
pending pr-*-'.d.'r.t;al directive At the ininimum, Clinton is expected to
sign an order that would suspend pending and future applications to
import moditied assault weapons The directive also would examine
the cntena used to allow import of nousporting weapons and adjust
lhat cntena if necessary.
We now are seeing manufacturers who are able, in a sense, to
clone assault weapons and slip underneath the siandards." White
House spokesman Mike McCum said Wednesday "The president
has a big concern about thai"
The White House's action came after 30 senators, led by Sen.
Dianne Feinstein. wrote Clinton last niomJi ^king thai lie teiuporanh
suspend imports of all semi-automatic assault weapons and block the
proposed import trom Israel of iliousands o f i econtigured Uzi and
Gahl assault weapons. The Uzis and Galils have been altered so thai
they do not violate the 1994 restrictions on assault weapons, but dieir
ability to accept large-capacity ammunition clips remain intaci.
It was not clear Weonesday how. or ii". Clmion 5 directive would ^
affect the import of the Israeli-made weapons or weapons from some
15 other countnes lhat have already received unporuuon permits irom
the U S. Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco and Firearms
Feinstein and now several members of Congress are urging Clrntor.
to use his executive auihonty in much the same wav President Bush
did in 1989 when he banned the importauon of A3 foreioi-made
assault weapons because they did not have a legitimate ' sporting
purpose" as required bv law.
You have the power to ban the impon of all assault weapons,
including those that have received federal permits in ihe past." the
letter to Clinton said
Top officials of the powerful National Rifle Association denounced
Clinton's pending action.
This is the most disturbing step in 50 years to ban an entire class
of firearms." said Wayne LaPierre, NRA's execuuve vice president.
This ban has nothing to do with crime," he said More people ire
murdered each year with fist and feet than with assault weapons"
Clinton, Reagan Donation Tapes Played Before Senate
Panel (Washn) By M a r c Lacey (c) 1997, Los Angeles
Times
WASHINGTON President Clinton and former President Reagan
both appeared before the .Senate campaign rund-raising hearings
Wednesday
on dueling videotapes played by lawmakers eager to land partisan
blows
One minute, there was Clinion shaking hands with contributors n a
explaining lo them oh-so-eamestly how essential their big checks
were to his campaign. Then Reagan, in his aw-shucks manner, offered
heartfelt gratitude to his financial supporters of years gone bv
And for Senate investigators who have been frustrated in their
effons to track down key players in ihe donations controversy.
Wednesday's film fest offered some consolation.
Wiih ihe push of a button, embattled Democratic fund-raiser John
Huang instantly maierialized before ihe Senate Govemmenial .Affairs
Comminee. So did controversial businessman Johnny Chung,
restaurateur-tumed-check collector Yah Lin '' Charlie" Trie and in
frame after frame the president himself.
Wiih Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., the committee chairman, acting
as narrator, the panel screened a highlight reel from the latest batch of
White House videotapes seen as damning or innocuous depending on
viewers' political stnpes
'' I guess ihis is ihe Senate's version of going to the Blockbuster
video store," quipped Sen Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.. who said he
was troubled by what he heard on both the Clinton and the Reagan
tapes.
Thompson said ihe Clinton tapes provided potentially damaging
evidence lhat the president's re-eleciion campaign violated federal
election law by using Democratic National Committee funds 10 pay for
advertising clearly aimed at rc-elecung the president.
Tlus was total control," Thompson said of the White House's
connecuon to the ads. '' We've never seen thai before in the history of
American politics, as far as I know. What you had here was a sham
situation "
In one tape, called '' exiraordinary" by Thompson. Clinton explains
to donors how he was able to get around the $ 1,000 contribution limit
to his campaign bv using unlimited '' soft monev" donations to ihe
DNC.
'' We realized we could run these ads through the Democratic Pany.
which meant we could raise money in $20,000 and $50,000 and
$100,000 blocks." Clinton told supporters at a White House gathering
on Dec. 7, 1995 " So we didn't have to do il all in $1,000 and run
down what I can spend, which is limited by law, so that's what wc
have done"
Thompson said the comminee would send a legal brief to Anomey
General Janet Reno explaining how the Clinton-Gore campaign had
violated election laws and urging, once again, the appointment of an
independent counsel to investigate the matter.
But Democratic comminee members argued that both major parties
paid for 1996 ads aimed at assisting their presidential candidates, and
said the practice was within the law. As for the Clinton videos. Sen
John Glenn. D-Ohio, said,'' I didn't see a whole lot there myself."
When Glenn had control of the play button. Reagan's face appeared
on video screens. He was shown at While House gatherings thanking
donors for iheir support and urging them 10 conunue to aid the
Republican caustf.
It's a bipartisan problem and these tapes show it," Glenn said.
�SUNTUM M @ A l
10/22/97 04:01 :00 PM
Record Type:
To:
Record
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: 1997-10-22 President's Remarks on Global Climate Change
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 2 2 , 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
National Geographic Society
Washington, D.C.
2:57 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Murphy, Mr.
Vice President, to all of you who are here. I thank especially the
members of Congress who are here, the leaders of labor and business
w h o are here, all the members of the administration, and especially
the White House staff members that the Vice President mentioned and
the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the EPA, and the others
who have helped us to come to this moment.
On the way in here we were met by the leaders of the
National Geographic, and I complimented them on their recent two-part
series on the Roman Empire. It's a fascinating story of how the
Empire rose, how it sustained itself for hundreds of years, w h y it
fell, and speculations on w h a t , if any, relevance it might have to
the United States and, indeed, the West.
And one of the gentlemen said, well, you know, we got a
lot of interesting comments on that, including a letter referencing a
statue we had of the bust of Emperor Vespasian. And one of our
readers said, w h y in the world did you put a statue of Gene Hackman
in a piece on the Roman Empire? (Laughter.) And I say that
basically to say, in some senses, the more things change, the more
they remain the same. (Laughter.)
For what sustains any civilization, and now what will
sustain all of our civilizations, is the constant effort at renewal,
�the ability to avoid denial and to proceed into the future in a way
that is realistic and humane, but resolute. Six years ago tomorrow,
not long after I started running for President, I went back to my
alma mater at Georgetown and began a series of three speeches
outlining my vision for America in the 21st century -- how we could
keep the American Dream alive for all of our people, how we could
maintain America's leadership for peace and freedom and prosperity,
and how we could come together across the lines that divide us as one
America.
And together, we've made a lot of progress in the last
nearly five years now that the Vice President and I have been
privileged to work at this task. At the threshold of a new century,
our economy is thriving, our social fabric is mending, we've helped
to lead the world toward greater peace and cooperation.
I think this has happened, in no small measure, in part
because we had a different philosophy about the role of government.
Today, it is smaller and more focused and more oriented toward giving
people the tools and the conditions they need to solve their o w n
problems and toward working in partnership with our citizens. More
important, I believe it's happened because we made tough choices but
not false choices.
On the economy, we made the choice to balance the budget
and to invest in our people and our future. On crime, we made the
choice to be tough and smart about prevention and changing the
conditions in which crime occurs. On welfare, we made the choice to
require w o r k , but also to support the children of people who have
been on welfare. On families, we made the choice to help parents
find more and better jobs and to have the necessary time and
resources for their children. And on the environment, we made the
choice to clean our air, water, and land, to improve our food supply,
and to grow the economy.
This kind of commonsense approach, rooted in our most
basic values and our enduring optimism about the capacity of free
people to meet the challenges of every age must be brought to bear on
the work that remains to pave the way for our people and for the
world t o w a r d a new century and a new millenium.
Today we have a clear responsibility and a golden
opportunity to conquer one of the most important challenges of the
21st century -- the challenge of climate change -- with an
environmentally sound and economically strong strategy, to achieve
meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases in the United States and
throughout the industrialized and the developing world. It is a
strategy that, if properly implemented, will create a wealth of new
opportunities for entrepreneurs at home, uphold our leadership
abroad, and harness the power of free markets to free our planet from
an unacceptable risk; a strategy as consistent with our commitment to
reject false choices.
�America can stand up for our national interest and stand
up for the common interest of the international community. America
can build on prosperity today and ensure a healthy planet for our
children t o m o r r o w .
In so many ways the problem of climate change reflects
the new realities of the new century. Many previous threats could be
met within our o w n borders, but global warming requires an
international solution. Many previous threats came from single
enemies, but global warming derives from millions of sources. Many
previous threats posed clear and present danger; global warming is
far more subtle, warning us not with roaring tanks or burning rivers
but w i t h invisible gases, slow changes in our surroundings,
increasingly severe climatic disruptions that, thank God, have not
yet hit home for most Americans. But make no mistake, the problem is
real. And if we do not change our course now, the consequences
sooner or later will be destructive for America and for the world.
The vast majority of the world's climate scientists have
concluded that if the countries of the world do not work together to
cut the emission of greenhouse gases, then temperatures will rise and
will disrupt the climate. In fact, most scientists say the process
has already begun. Disruptive weather events are increasing.
Disease-bearing insects are moving to areas that used to be too cold
for them. Average temperatures are rising. Glacial formations are
receding.
Scientists don't yet know what the precise consequences
will be. But we do know enough now to know that the Industrial Age
has dramatically increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, where
they take a century or more to dissipate; and that the process must
be slowed, then stopped, then reduced if we want to continue our
economic progress and preserve the quality of life in the United
States and throughout our planet. We know what we have to do.
Greenhouse gas emissions are caused mostly by the
inefficient burning of coal or oil for energy. Roughly a third of
these emissions come from industry, a third from transportation, a
third from residential and commercial buildings. In each case, the
conversion of fuel to energy use is extremely inefficient and could
be made much cleaner w i t h existing technologies or those already on
the horizon, in ways that will not weaken the economy but in fact
will add to our strength in new businesses and new jobs. If we do
this properly, we will not jeopardize our prosperity - we will
increase it.
With that principle in mind, I'm announcing the
instruction I'm giving to our negotiators as they pursue a realistic
and effective international climate change treaty. And I'm
announcing a far-reaching proposal that provides flexible
market-based and cost-effective ways to achieve meaningful reductions
�here in America. I want to emphasize that we cannot wait until the
treaty is negotiated and ratified to act. The United States has less
than 5 percent of the world's people, enjoys 22 percent of the
world's wealth, but emits more than 25 percent of the world's
greenhouse gases. We must begin now to take out our insurance policy
on the future.
In the international climate negotiations, the United
States will pursue a comprehensive framework that includes three
elements, w h i c h , taken together, will enable us to build a strong and
robust global agreement. First, the United States proposes at Kyoto
that we commit to the binding and realistic target of returning to
emissions of 1 9 9 0 levels between 2 0 0 8 and 2 0 1 2 . And we should not
stop there. We should commit to reduce emissions below 1990 levels
in the five-year period thereafter, and we must work toward further
reductions in the years ahead.
The industrialized nations tried to reduce emissions to
1990 levels once before with a voluntary approach, but regrettably,
most of us - including especially the United States - fell short.
We must find new resolve to achieve these reductions, and to do that
we simply must commit to binding limits.
Second, we will embrace flexible mechanisms for meeting
these limits. We propose an innovative, joint implementation system
that allows a firm in one country to invest in a project that reduces
emissions in another country and receive credit for those reductions
at home. And we propose an international system of emissions
trading. These innovations will cut worldwide pollution, keep costs
low, and help developing countries protect their environment, too,
without sacrificing their economic g r o w t h .
Third, both industrialized and developing countries must
participate in meeting the challenge of climate change. The
industrialized world must lead, but developing countries also must be
engaged. The United States will not assume binding obligations
unless key developing nations meaningfully participate in this
effort.
As President Carlos Menem stated forcefully last week
when I visited him in Argentina, a global problem such as climate
change requires a global answer. If the entire industrialized world
reduces emissions over the next several decades, but emissions from
the developing world continue to grow at their current pace,
concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will continue
to climb. Developing countries have an opportunity to chart a
different energy future consistent with their g r o w t h potential and
their legitimate economic aspirations.
What Argentina, w i t h dramatic projected economic g r o w t h ,
recognizes is true for other countries as well: We can and we must
work together on this problem in a way that benefits us all. Here at
home, we must move forward by unleashing the full power of free
markets and technological innovations to meet the challenge of
�climate change. I propose a sweeping plan to provide incentives and
lift road blocks to help our companies and our citizens find new and
creative ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
First, we must enact tax cuts and make research and
development investments worth up to $5 billion over the next five
years -- targeted incentives to encourage energy efficiency and the
use of cleaner energy sources.
Second, we must urge companies to take early actions to
reduce emissions by ensuring that they receive appropriate credit for
showing the way.
Third, we must create a market system for reducing
emissions wherever they can be achieved most inexpensively, here or
abroad; a system that will draw on our successful experience with
acid rain permit trading.
Fourth, we must reinvent how the federal government, the
nation's largest energy consumer, buys and uses energy. Through new
technology, renewable energy resources, innovative partnerships with
private firms and assessments of greenhouse gas emissions from major
federal projects, the federal government will play an important role
in helping our nation to meet its goal. Today, as a down payment on
our million solar roof initiative, I commit the federal government to
have 2 0 , 0 0 0 systems on federal buildings by 2 0 1 0 .
Fifth, we must unleash competition in the electricity
industry, to remove outdated regulations and save Americans billions
of dollars. We must do it in a way that leads to even greater
progress in cleaning our air and delivers a significant d o w n payment
in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Today, two-thirds of the
energy used to provide electricity is squandered in waste heat. We
can do m u c h , much better.
Sixth, we must continue to encourage key industry
sectors to prepare their o w n greenhouse gas reduction plans. And we
must, along w i t h state and local government, remove the barriers to
the most energy efficient usage possible. There are ways the federal
government can help industry to achieve meaningful reductions
voluntarily, and we will redouble our efforts to do so.
This plan is sensible and sound. Since it's a long-term
problem requiring a long-term solution, it will be phased in over
time. But we want to get moving n o w . We will start with our package
of strong market incentives, tax cuts, and cooperative efforts w i t h
industry. We want to stimulate early action and encourage
leadership. And as we reduce our emissions over the next decade with
these e f f o r t s , we will perform regular reviews to see what works best
for the environment, the economy, and our national security.
After we have accumulated a decade of experience, a
�decade of data, a decade of technological innovation, we will launch
a broad emissions trading initiative to ensure that we hit our
binding targets. At that time, if there are dislocations caused by
the changing patterns of energy use in America, we have a moral
obligation to respond to those to help the workers and the
enterprises affected -- no less than we do today by any change in our
economy which affects people through no fault of their o w n .
This plan plays to our strengths -- innovation,
creativity, entrepreneurship. Our companies already are showing the
way by developing tremendous environmental technologies and
implementing commonsense conservation solutions.
Just yesterday, Secretary Pena announced a dramatic
breakthrough in fuel cell technology, funded by the Department of
Energy research -- a breakthrough that will clear the way toward
developing cars that are twice as efficient as today's models and
reduce pollution by 9 0 percent. The breakthrough was made possible
by our path-breaking partnership with the auto industry to create a
new generation of vehicles. A different design, producing similar
results, has been developed by a project funded by the Defense
Advanced Research Products Agency and the Commerce Department's
National Institute of Science and Technology.
The Energy Department discovery is amazing in what it
does. Today, gasoline is used very inefficiently in internal
combustion engines - about 8 0 percent of its energy capacity is
lost. The DOE project announced yesterday by A . D . Little and Company
uses 8 4 percent of the gasoline directly going into the fuel cell.
That's increased efficiency of more than four times traditional
engine usage.
And I might add, from the point of view of all the
people that are involved in the present system, continuing to use
gasoline means that you don't have to change any of the distribution
systems that are out there. It's a very important, but by no means
the only, discovery that's been made that points the way toward the
future we have to embrace.
I also want to emphasize, however, that most of the
technologies available for meeting this goal through market
mechanisms are already out there - we simply have to take advantage
of t h e m . For example, in the t o w n of West Branch, Iowa, a science
teacher named Hector Ibarra challenged his 6th graders to apply their
classroom experiments to making their school more energy efficient.
The class got a $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 loan from a local bank and put in place
easily available solutions. The students cut the energy use in their
school by 70 percent. Their savings were so impressive that the bank
decided to upgrade its o w n energy efficiency. (Laughter.)
Following the lead of these 6th graders - (laughter) other major companies in America have shown similar results. You
have only to look at the proven results achieved by companies like
Southwire, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kraft, Interface Carpetmakers, and
�any number of others in every sector of our economy to see what can
be done.
Our industries have produced a large group of efficient
new refrigerators, computers, washer/dryers, and other appliances
that use far less energy, save money, and cut pollution. The
revolution in lighting alone is truly amazing. One compact
fluorescent lamp, used by one person over its lifetime, can save
nearly a ton of carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere, and
save the consumer money.
If over the next 15 years everyone were to buy only
those energy-efficient products marked in stores with EPA's
distinctive "Energy Star" label, we could shrink our energy bills by
a total of about $100 billion over the next 15 years and dramatically
cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite these win-win innovations and commitments that
are emerging literally every day, I know full well that some will
criticize our targets and timetables as too ambitious. A n d , of
course, others will say we haven't gone far enough. But before the
debate begins in earnest, let's remember that over the past
generation, w e ' v e produced tremendous environmental progress,
including in the area of energy efficiency, at far less expense than
anyone could have imagined. And in the process, whole new industries
have been built.
In the past three decades, while our economy has g r o w n ,
we have raised, not lowered, the standards for the water our children
drink. While our factories have been expanding, we have required
them to clean up their toxic waste. While we've had record numbers
of new homes, our refrigerators save more energy and more money for
our consumers.
In 1 9 7 0 , when smog was choking our cities, the federal
government proposed new standards for tailpipe emissions. Many
environmental leaders claim the standards would do little to head off
catastrophe. Industry experts predicted the cost of compliance would
devastate the industry. It turned out both sides were w r o n g . Both
underestimated the ingenuity of the American people. Auto makers
comply w i t h today's much stricter emissions standards for far less
than half the cost predicted, and new cars emit on average only 5
percent of the pollutants of the cars built in 1970.
W e ' v e seen this pattern over and over and over again.
We saw it when we joined together in the '70s to restrict the use of
the carcinogen, vinyl chloride. Some in the plastics industry
predicted massive bankruptcies, but chemists discovered more
cost-effective substitutes and the industries thrived. We saw this
when we phased out lead and gasoline. And we see it in our acid rain
trading program - now 4 0 percent ahead of schedule - at costs less
�than 50 percent of even the most optimistic cost projections. We see
it as the chlorofluorocarbons are being taken out of the atmosphere
at virtually no cost in ways that apparently are beginning finally to
show some thickening of the ozone layer again.
The lesson here is simple: Environmental initiatives,
if sensibly designed, flexibly implemented, cost less than expected
and provide unforseen economic opportunities. So while we recognize
that the challenge we take on today is larger than any environmental
mission we have accepted in the past, climate change can bring us
together around what America does best -- we innovate, we compete, we
find solutions to problems, and we do it in a way that promotes
entrepreneurship and strengthens the American economy.
If we do it right, protecting the climate will yield not
costs, but profits; not burdens, but benefits; not sacrifice, but a
higher standard of living. There is a huge body of business evidence
now showing that energy savings give better service at lower cost
w i t h higher profit. We have to tear d o w n barriers to successful
markets and we have to create incentives to enter them. I call on
American business to lead the w a y , but I call upon government at
every level -- federal, state, and local -- to give business the
tools they need to get the job done, and also to set an example in
all our operations.
And let us remember that the challenge we face today is
not simply about targets and timetables. It's about our most
fundamental values and our deepest obligations.
Later today, I'm going to have the honor of meeting w i t h
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of
3 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Orthodox Christians -- a man w h o has always stressed the
deep obligations inherent in God's gift to the natural world. He
reminds us that the first part of the word "ecology" derives from the
Greek w o r d for house. In his words, in order to change the behavior
toward the house we all share, we must rediscover spiritual linkages
that may have been lost and reassert human values. Of course, he is
right. It is our solemn obligation to move forward with courage and
foresight to pass our home on to our children and future generations.
I hope you believe w i t h me that this is just another
challenge in America's long history, one that we can meet in the way
we have met all past challenges. I hope that you believe w i t h me
that the evidence is clear that we can do it in a way that grows the
economy, not w i t h denial, but w i t h a firm and glad embrace of yet
another challenge of renewal. We should be glad that we are alive
today to embrace this challenge, and we should do it secure in the
knowledge that our children and grandchildren will thank us for the
endeavor.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
3:24 P.M. EDT
�THE WHITE H0U3E
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 6, 1997
REMARKS B THE PRESIDENT
Y
AT WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE O CLIMATE C A G
N
HNE
Georgetown University
Washington, D C
..
10:30 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Vice
President, f o r your remarks, and your remarkable leadership to help
us keep our Earth i n the balance. Thank you, Father O'Donovan, f o r
l e t t i n g me come home to Georgetown one more time to discuss a matter
of immense importance to America and i t s future. I thank the members
of Congress and the members of the Cabin i t and the administration who
are here, a l l those who have agreed to serve on the panels, and a l l
you who have come to be a part of t h i s important day.
Six years ago last Friday -- I can hardly believe i t ,
but i t was six years ago last Friday tha; I announced my intention t o
run f o r President — challenging America t o embrace and t o vigorously
pursue a vision of our country for the 21st century: to make the
American Dream alive f o r every person responsible to work f o r i t , t o
keep our country the world's strongest force for peace and freedom
and prosperity, to bring our people together across a l l the lines
that divide us into one America.
Shortly afterward I came here to Georgetown to t h i s
great h a l l t o outline specific strategies and new policies to achieve
' that v i s i o n , rooted i n our values of opportunity and responsibility,
f a i t h and family and coiranunity; designed to help Americans seize the
opportunities and solve the problems of t h i s new age. I t was clear
to me that our new direction had t o be rooted i n some basic
guideposts ~ that we had t o be oriented toward the future, not the
past; toward change, not the status quo; toward partnership, not
d i v i s i o n ; toward giving a l l a chance, not just the few; and f i n a l l y
toward making sure America leads, not follows.
we t r i e d t o develop a new approach t o government, where
we didn't claim t o do everything and we wouldn't tolerate doing
nothing, but instead we focused on giving people the tools to make
the most of t h e i r own lives and creating the conditions that would
allow them t o succeed.
And we had new policies — the economic policies and
trade p o l i c i e s , education policy, crime and welfare, policies toward
the working poor, policies t o bolster families and help them balance
work and child-rearing, policies i n health care and foreign policy
and, yes, policies i n the environment.
In the last four years and eight months, I think i t ' s
f a i r to say that, together, we have made real progress toward that
vision f o r the 21st century, we stand at the threshold of that
century stronger than most people thought was possible back i n 1991,
with our economy t h r i v i n g , our social fabric mending, our leadership
in the world strong. W have a solid foundation of achievement on
e
which t o stand as we take on the remaining challenges to build that
bridge t o the 21st century.
MR
OE
�- 2 -
We are back here a t Georgetown today because g l o b a l
c l i m a t e change c l e a r l y i s one of the most i m p o r t a n t of those
c h a l l e n g e s , and a l s o one of the most complex, c r o s s i n g the
d i s c i p l i n e s of environmental science, economics, technology,
business, p o l i t i c s , i n t e r n a t i o n a l development and g l o b a l diplomacy;
a f f e c t i n g how we and a l l o t h e r s on t h i s p l a n e t w i l l l i v e , support our
f a m i l i e s , grow our food, produce our energy and r e a l i z e our dreams i n
the new c e n t u r y .
That's why we've p u t t o g e t h e r t h i s White House
Conference on Climate Change, b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r e x p e r t s and leaders
w i t h a wide range of knowledge and a wide range of views. People of
g o o d w i l l b r i n g t o t h i s conference many honest disagreements about the
nature of t h e t h r e a t we face and how we should respond. That i s
h e a l t h y i n a democracy l i k e ours. My hope i s t h a t we w i l l take
advantage o f t h i s forum t o a c t u a l l y t a l k w i t h each o t h e r r a t h e r than
past each o t h e r . For i t i s our r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o work t o g e t h e r t o
achieve two v i t a l and compatible g o a l s , ensuring the continued
v i t a l i t y of our p l a n e t and expanding economic growth and o p p o r t u n i t y
f o r our people.
Despite t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s of these c h a l l e n g e s , we have
good reason t o be o p t i m i s t i c , b e g i n n i n g w i t h our 220-year r e c o r d of
making a l l manner of d i f f i c u l t problems s o l v a b l e , and, i m p o r t a n t l y , a
very good r e c o r d i n t h e l a s t g e n e r a t i o n of environmental progress.
F w r t t f r t S I K i a r e ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^ ^ i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r t o heed Rachel
gaBorlrie i n t j c^eaigaJjuJUaafc-warB — t ing •~hol«u.<ln- t h a ozone l a y e r . .
***'y6<Wl8Jt[ffi^
fal
ftfim-*""""
-'*"
f o r e s t o f Northern
e i l l r o m ' M i ^ w r c o r s ' S t S i i ' F l b r I d a Everglades, p r o t e c t Yellowstone
_'_.;
w&ms&m^g^
Indeed, i n t a c k l i n g t h e d i f f i c u l t t a s k of c u t t i n g
sulphur d i o x i d e emissions w i t h an i n n o v a t i v e system of p e r m i t
t r a d i n g , t h e U n i t e d States i s w e l l ahead of t h e schedule we set 'for
ourselves and w e l l below t h e p r o j e c t e d c o s t i n c l e a n i n g t h e
environment. I b e l i e v e we can f i n d t h a t same common ground as we
address t h e c h a l l e n g e o f c l i m a t e change.
/Q*
\f .
(0
^
fy
W
Before we begin our d i s c u s s i o n today, I t h i n k i t ' s
i m p o r t a n t f o r me t o e x p l a i n t h e f o u r p r i n c i p l e s t h a t w i l l guide my
approach t o t h i s i s s u e . F i r s t , I'm convinced t h a t t h e science of
c l i m a t e change i s r e a l . We'll hear more about t h i s today from our
f i r s t p a n e l . But f o r me the bottom l i n e i s t h a t , although we do not
know e v e r y t h i n g , what we do know i s more than enough t o warrant
responsible action.
The g r e a t m a j o r i t y of t h e world's c l i m a t e s c i e n t i s t s
have concluded i f we don't c u t our emission of greenhouse gases,
temperatures w i l l a r i s e and w i l l d i s r u p t t h e g l o b a l c l i m a t e . I n
f a c t , most s c i e n t i s t s say t h i s process has a l r e a d y begun. I might
add t h a t I had n o t h i n g t o do w i t h scheduling t h i s conference on the
day which i s p r e d i c t e d t o be t h e h o t t e s t October 6th t h a t we have
ever had i n Washington, D.C.
(Laughter.)
I know not everyone agrees on how t o i n t e r p r e t the
s c i e n t i f i c c o n c l u s i o n s . I know not everyone shares my assessment of
the r i s k s . • But I t h i n k we a l l have t o agree t h a t the p o t e n t i a l f o r
s e r i o u s c l i m a t e d i s r u p t i o n i s r e a l . I t would c l e a r l y be a grave
mistake t o bury our heads i n t h e sand and p r e t e n d t h e issue w i l l go
away.
The second p r i n c i p l e i s t h r t when t h e n a t i o n s of the
w o r l d meet i n December i n Kyoto, Japan, we must be prepared t o commit
t o r e a l i s t i c and b i n d i n g goals on our emissions of greenhouse gases.
MORE
�- 3 With 4 percent of the world's population, we enjoy more than 20
percent of the world's wealth — which helps to explain why we also
produce more than 2 0 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. I f we
expect other nations to act on the problem, we must show leadership.
The t h i r d principle i s that we must embrace solutions
that w i l l allow us to continue to grow our economy as we honor our
global r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and our responsibilities to our children.
We've worked far too hard to r e v i t a l i z e the American Dream to
jeopardize our progress now. Therefore, we must emphasize f l e x i b l e
market-based approaches. We must work with business and industry to
find the r i g h t ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We must
promote technologies that make energy production and consumption more
efficient.
There are many people here today from companies that are
addressing the climate change i n innovative ways, taking steps that
w i l l save money for American families even as we reduce the threat of
global warming. For example, a number cf leading e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s ,
including AEP, Southern Company, Niagara Mohawk and Northern States
Power, are working with homeowners to promote a new technology called
geo-exchange, using geothermal pumps to heat and cool homes f a r more
cheaply than t r a d i t i o n a l systems while reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by 40 percent or more. Ballard Power and United
Technologies are leading pioneers i n developing fuel cells that are
so clean, t h e i r only exhaust i s d i s t i l l e d water.
Right now, Ballard i s working with Chrysler, Mercedes
Benz and Toyota to introduce fuel cells into new cars. Both of these
technologies represent the kind of creative solutions that w i l l make
our job much easier.
The fourth principle i s that we must expect a l l nations,
both industrialized and developing, to participate i n t h i s process i n
a way that i s f a i r to a l l . I t i s encouraging that so many nations i n
so many parts of the world are developing so rapidly. That i s good
news f o r t h e i r people and i t i s good for America's economic future.
But as we've seen r i g h t here at home, r i s i n g energy demands that
accompany economic development t r a d i t i o n a l l y have meant large
increases i n greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, i f current trends
continue, emissions from the developing world w i l l l i k e l y eclipse
those from the developed world i n the next few decades.
But they have an opportunity to pursue a d i f f e r e n t
future without s a c r i f i c i n g economic growth. The industrialized world
alone cannot assume responsibility for reducing emissions.
Otherwise, we'll wind up with no reduction i n emissions within a
matter of a few decades. In Kyoto, therefore, we w i l l ask for
meaningful, but equitable commitments fram a l l nations. Second, we
must explore new ways for American businesses to help these rapidly
growing countries to meet t h e i r developmental needs with cleaner and
more e f f i c i e n t energy technologies.
Today I hope we can take a step forward i n putting a l l
four of these principles into effect, we have studied t h i s issue
long enough to know that there are sensible options f o r action. I t
is our job now to p u l l them together into a coherent plan.
Nearly three decades ago when the Apollo astronauts
f i r s t went to the Moon, we gained an e n t i r e l y new perspective on the
global challenge we face today. For looking down on Earth from the
vantage point that revealed no p o l i t i c a l boundaries or divisions, the
astronauts had the same c h i l l i n g sensation. They were simply
awestruck by how t i n y and f r a g i l e our planet i s — protected from the
harsh void of space by an atmosphere that looked as t h i n and delicate
as the skin of an onion. Every astronaut since has experienced the
same insight, and they've even given i t a name ~ the Overview
Effect. I t has i n s t i l l e d i n each new aptronaut a passion to convince
people we must work together on Earth's behalf.
�- 4 -
Rusty Schwieckart has s a i d , you r e a l i z e t h a t on t h a t
l i t t l e b l u e and w h i t e t h i n g , t h e r e i s e v e r y t h i n g t h a t means a n y t h i n g
t o you — a l l h i s t o r y and music and p o e t r y and a r t and death and
b i r t h and love — a l l o f i t on t h a t l i t t l e spot out t h e r e you can
cover w i t h your thumb.
To t h e best o f my knowledge, only one person here has
a c t u a l l y experienced t h e Overview E f f e c t f i r s t h a n d — Dr. Mae
Jemison, a former s h u t t l e a s t r o n a u t and c u r r e n t i n t e r n a t i o n a l
development e x p e r t who w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n our t h i r d panel d i s c u s s i o n
t h i s a f t e r n o o n . Nonetheless, I challenge everyone i n t h i s room t o
r i s e t o a vantage p o i n t h i g h enough t o experience t h e overview
e f f e c t . I t w i l l enable us t o reach common ground.
Let me say when t h e v i c e P r e s i d e n t was t a l k i n g and
Father O'Donovan was t a l k i n g , I was l o o k i n g around t h i s o l d h a l l t h a t
I have l o v e d f o r so long, and I found i t u t t e r l y amazing t h a t I f i r s t
came here 3 3 years ago. I was reading t h i s morning up a t Camp David
the l i s t o f people who were going t o be nere today, and I found i t
u t t e r l y amazing t h a t a few o f you I f i r s t t a l k e d t o as long as 20
years ago about t h e need t o b u i l d an al-csrnative energy f u t u r e f o r
America. And I f i n d i t completely amazing t h a t f i v e - e i g h t h s of my
presidency i s behind me.
I make these p o i n t s f o r t h i s reason: I f you t h i n k about
the benchmarks i n your own l i f e , i t doesn't take long t o l i v e your
life.
And what seems a t t h e beginning o f your l i f e a very long time,
seems t o have passed i n t h e f l a s h o f an eye once you have experienced
it.
These g r e a t developments, such as t h e one we're here t o t a l k
about today, occur over many l i f e spans. And popular democracies are
f a r more w e l l - o r g a n i z e d t o take advantage of o p p o r t u n i t i e s or deal
w i t h immediate c r i s e s than they are t o do t h e r e s p o n s i b l e t h i n g ,
which i s t o t a k e a moderate, b u t d i s c i p l i n e d approach f a r enough i n
advance o f a t r a i n coming down t h e t r a c k t o a v o i d l e a v i n g our
c h i l d r e n and our g r a n d c h i l d r e n w i t h a c a t a s t r o p h e .
So I ask you t o t h i n k about t h a t . We do not want t h e
young people who s a t on these steps today, f o r whom 33 years w i l l
a l s o pass i n t h e f l a s h o f an eye, t o have t o be burdened or t o burden
t h e i r c h i l d r e n w i t h our f a i l u r e t o a c t . Thank you.
(Applause.)
END
10:48 A.M.
EDT
�THE WHITE HOUSE
O f f i c e o f t h e Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 6, 1997
REMARKS B T THE PRESIDENT
V
DURING PRESENTATIONS AT
WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y
Washington, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT: I s n ' t t h e r e some evidence already t h a t
m a l a r i a i n n a t i o n s and areas where i t p r e s e n t l y e x i s t s i s becoming
more p r e v a l e n t and moving t o higher climate?
DR. LIVERMAN: Yes, t h e r e i s some evidence t h a t , f o r
example, t h e r e i s more m a l a r i a a t h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n s i n some
developing c o u n t r i e s , and c e r t a i n l y t h e r e i s some more anecdotal
evidence o f m a l a r i a moving i n t o t h e United States. That's p a r t l y
c l i m a t e , b u t i t ' s a l s o because we have a much more mobile p o p u l a t i o n
today than we had i n t h e past.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you one o t h e r q u e s t i o n ,
because — l e t me go back t o what I s a i d i n t h e beginning. This i s
one o f t h e most d i f f i c u l t problems o f democracy because we g e t 100
percent o f t h e people t o agree t h a t i t e x i s t s , and only 10 percent o f
the people have experienced i t and another 10 percent o f t h e people
can imagine i t and, t h e r e f o r e , are w i l l i n g t o deal w i t h i t . You
s t i l l have t o have t o have 51 percent i n order t o develop any k i n d o f
p o l i t i c a l consensus f o r doing a n y t h i n g , I t h i n k , commensurate w i t h
the need.
So would you say — I have — and I know t h i s happens t o
a l o t o f people — b u t I had a number o f people — I had a young
congressman i n t o see me t h e other day who was a member o f t h e
Republican Party and he s a i d , you know, i n my s t a t e we've had 300
year f l o o d s i n 10 years. I met a man over my v a c a t i o n who s a i d t h a t
he was moving away from t h e place he had l i v e d f o r a decade because
i t was a completely d i f f e r e n t place than i t had been j u s t 10 years
ago; i t was h o t t e r , t h e r e were more mosquitoes, i t was a very
d i f f e r e n t and d i f f i c u l t place.
Do you b e l i e v e t h a t these i n e c d o t a l experiences are
l i k e l y r e l a t e d t o c l i m a t e change, o r are they j u s t b a s i c a l l y people's
imagination?
DR. LIVERMAN: No, I a c t u a l l y t h i n k t h e r e i s a
s c i e n t i f i c b a s i s f o r these perceptions o f c l i m a t e change; t h e r e ' s
such an area I d i d research i n . And we've done very c a r e f u l l y
s t r u c t u r e d s c i e n t i f i c surveys o f farmers and o f c i t y d w e l l e r s t h a t
show t h a t many people do b e l i e v e t h a t t h e c l i m a t e i s changing —
whether i t ' s a farmer i n Mexico o r a r e s i d e n t o f Los Angeles, we
have a l o t o f s t u d i e s where people do b e l i e v e i t ' s changing, and i n
many cases i t c o r r e l a t e s w i t h t h e type o f observed temperature
changes t h a t Tom K a r l t a l k s about.
So my f e e l i n g from my own wark i n t e r v i e w i n g people i s
t h a t many people i n t h i s country do t h i n k t h a t t h e c l i m a t e i s
changing and are concerned about i t .
THE PRESIDENT:
Dr. K a r l , c. you want t o say anything?
-o
MORE
�- 2 -
DR. KARL: Yes, a c t u a l l y I t h i n k the anecdotal evidence
i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the n o t i o n t h a t although no s i n g l e event i s the
b a s i s f o r saying g l o b a l warming i s t a k i n g p l a c e , i f you l o o k a t many
of — i n f a c t , I have a number of s t a t i s t i c s you might f i n d of some
i n t e r e s t here. J u s t d u r i n g 1996, we had s i x s t a t e s t h a t set t h e i r
a l l - t i m e annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n amount ~ not t o belabor i t , but t o t a l s
l i k e 16 f e e t of r a i n f a l l i n Oregon d u r i n g t h e year 1996; over e i g h t
f e e t of p r e c i p i t a t i o n and Mt. M a n s f i e l d i n Vermont, and t h e r e are a
number o f o t h e r records l i k e t h i s .
These are t h e types of t h i n g s t h a t c e r t a i n l y have an
impact and I t h i n k people remember.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I f I c o u l d add a word t o t h i s , I
noted e a r l i e r James Lee W i t t , who i s head of FEMA here, he and I have
gone o u t , as he and t h e P r e s i d e n t have gone out f r e q u e n t l y t o t h e
s i t e s o f these d i s a s t e r s , and the budget f o r t h e consequences f o r the
f l o o d i n g event and the o t h e r d i s a s t e r events as w e l l now reaches an
average of $1 b i l l i o n a week i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s .
You mentioned, Doctor, about m a l a r i a . One s c i e n t i s t was
t e l l i n g us r e c e n t l y about a case o f m a l a r i a t h a t showed up i n D e t r o i t
d u r i n g a month when t h e average temperature was a f u l l s i x degrees
warmer than t h e 30-year average, and w h i l e of course you can't again
say t h a t ' s t h e cause and t h a t ' s t h e e f f e c t , t h e odds of diseases of
t h a t k i n d , as s e c r e t a r y Donna Shalala who i s here, has t o l d us,
increase q u i t e d r a m a t i c a l l y .
The o t h e r t h i n g I wanted t o ask j u s t b r i e f l y i s , i n
terms o f t h e e f f e c t s on human beings. The weather f o r e c a s t e r s who
were a t t h e White House l a s t week t a l k about t h e heat index, t h e
combination o f temperatures and h u m i d i t y . And your p r e s e n t a t i o n
f o l l o w e d r i g h t or! Dr. Tom K a r l ' s , and somebody was saying t h a t the
heat index here i n Washington, D.C,
by t h e middle of the next
c e n t u r y i s p r e d i c t e d t o go from — do you know t h e numbers, Dr. Karl?
the
to
DR. KARL:
exact numbers, b u t
I t h i n k i t ' s up t o 105 or 110.
—
I don't know
DR. LIVERMAN: I t ' s under 100 now, and i t ' s going t o go
about 105 on average, they t h i n k , d u r i n g t h e summer months.
THE VICE PRESIDENT:
W e l l , w e ' l l g e t some more on t h a t .
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: We c e r t a i n l y w i l l .
(Laughter.) One
reason I b e l i e v e t h i s i s o c c u r r i n g i s t h i t James Lee W i t t i s t h e only
member of my Cabinet who i s a c t u a l l y d i s i p p o i n t e d when h i s budget
goes up.
(Laughter.) And he's had a l o t of disappointments these
l a s t f i v e years.
I'd l i k e t o now c a l l on Donald W i l h i t e t o t a l k about the
r e l a t i o n s h i p — we've heard about increased p r e c i p i t a t i o n and I ' d
l i k e t o ask him t o t a l k about drought and t h e apparent paradox i n
drought p a t t e r n s and increased p r e c i p i t a t i o n p a t t e r n s and what
i m p l i c a t i o n s t h i s might have f o r American a g r i c u l t u r e , which i s a
t e r r i b l y i m p o r t a n t p a r t of our economy and we have a l l been c o u n t i n g
on i t being a v e r y i m p o r t a n t p a r t of our export, economy f o r the
indefinite future.
DR. WILHITE: Thank you, Mr. P r e s i d e n t , Mr. v i c e
P r e s i d e n t . I was asked t o t a l k a l i t t l e b i t about — g i v e t h e dry
t a l k , I guess, of t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n .
(Lsughter.) Each drought event
I t h i n k i s a v i v i d reminder o f our n a t i o n ' s c o n t i n u i n g v u l n e r a b i l i t y
t o c l i m a c t i c v a r i a t i o n s . I f one can rei.-.smber t h e severe drought of
the l a t e 1980s and t h e e a r l y 1990s, those r e s u l t e d i n severe economic
and environmental consequences i n many p a r t s o f t h e c o u n t r y .
MORE
�- 3 -
I n 1988, f o r example, n e a r l y 50 percent of t h i a n a t i o n
was a f f e c t e d by severe drought and r e s u l t e d i n excesses of S15
b i l l i o n i n a g r i c u l t u r a l losses i n t h i s c o u n t r y ; a v e r y dramatic
number. I n 1996 we had a reoccurrence of drought i n t h e Southwestern
U n i t e d S t a t e s , and t h i s a l s o r e s u l t e d i n severe economic and
environmental l o s s e s , a h i g h e r incidence of f o r e s t f i r e s and so
f o r t h . T h i s a l s o i s of concern. I n the s t a t e of Texas alone,
impacts were i n excess of $5 b i l l i o n .
Now, American a g r i c u l t u r e , w h i l e t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y
advanced, i s s t i l l s u b j e c t t o the s e n s i t i v i t y of weather c o n d i t i o n s
or t h e v a g a r i e s of weather, the s l i d e t h a t ' s up on t h e screen now
shows a dramatic upward t r e n d i n corn y i e l d s since 1950 i n the United
States. But note t h e d e v i a t i o n s on t h a t t r e n d . Those d e v i a t i o n s are
l a r g e l y t h e r e s u l t of v a r i a t i o n s i n c l i m a t e or extreme weather
c o n d i t i o n s . Most of those are the r e s u l t of drought events, some of
those are t h e r e s u l t of e x c e s s i v e l y wet events which delayed or
hampered s p r i n g p l a n t i n g .
Drought a l s o i s of h i g h incidence i n a normal p a r t of
the c l i m a t e i n v i r t u a l l y a l l p o r t i o n s of the c o u n t r y . This next
diagram shows the incidence of drought i n the U n i t e d States over the
l a s t 10 years. So w h i l e i t ' s t r u e we've had maybe an increase i n
p r e c i p i t a t i o n , I t h i n k i t ' s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note from t h i s s l i d e which
shows t h e number of years e x p e r i e n c i n g msderate, severe or extreme
drought i n t h e l a s t 10, t h a t w h i l e you have a r a t h e r s u r p r i s i n g l y
l a r g e area i n t h e Western United States t h a t shows a h i g h incidence
of drought, we are a l s o demonstrating the h i g h i n c i d e n c e of drought
i n t h e Great P l a i n s s t a t e s , i n t h e Southwest, i n the Midwest and a l s o
along t h e Eastern Coastal s t a t e s .
So drought i s c l e a r l y a phenomena t h a t a f f e c t s a l l
p o r t i o n s of the n a t i o n , not j u s t the Western U n i t e d S t a t e s . So t h a t
p r o j e c t e d increases i n temperature and a p o s s i b l e a c c e l e r a t e d water
c y c l e t h a t we've been h e a r i n g about t h i s morning may lead t o changes
i n both t h e amount and t h e seasonal d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r e c i p i t a t i o n
which may a l t e r then the incidence of drought events and a l s o f l o o d
events i n t h i s c o u n t r y .
So w h i l e we don't know p r e c i s e l y what t h e r e g i o n a l
impacts o f c l i m a t e change may be, as Dr. Liverman was speaking about
a few moments ago, we do know t h e impacts a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these
extreme weather events, and we a l s o know where our v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s
are as a r e s u l t of t h i s . And I t h i n k i t ' s prudent t h a t we s o r t of
assess what our v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s are and use these as a way t o reduce
the impacts o f drought events and f l o o d events today t h a t w i l l help
us i n t h e f u t u r e .
THE PRESIDENT: I want t o ask a q u e s t i o n and t r y t o make
sure t h a t are a l l as c l e a r as we can be based on what i s known about
two a p p a r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y t h i n g s . That i s t h a t t h e t o t a l volume
of p r e c i p i t a t i o n has increased v i r t u a l l y everywhere and the number
and s e v e r i t y o f droughts has increased across t h e c o u n t r y .
Now, Dr. K a r l s a i d e a r l i e r t h a t p a r t of t h e e x p l a n a t i o n
i s t h a t t h e p r e c i p i t a t i o n we're g e t t i n g i s coming i n b i g g e r b u r s t s .
But what I would l i k e t o do i s have somebody o f f e r b a s i c a l l y a l i n e
of e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t everyone i n the audience and h o p e f u l l y those who
w i l l be f o l l o w i n g these proceedings can understand, why d i d i t happen
a t t h e same t i m e t h a t we had more drought and more f l o o d s ? How could
we have more droughts when t h e aggregate amount of p r e c i p i t a t i o n on
an annual b a s i s was increased? And I t M n k i t ' s i m p o r t a n t t h a t
people k i n d o f " g e t " why t h a t happens.
DR. WILHITE: W e l l , I ' l l take a f i r s t shot a t t h a t .
F i r s t o f a l l , t h e increased p r e c i p i t a t i o n amount t h a t Tom K a r l was
r e f e r e n c i n g e a r l i e r , a l o t of t h i s i n c r r a s e d p r e c i p i t a t i o n i s coming
i n t h e form of s h o r t - t e r m , i n t e n s e p r e c i p i t a t i o n events which leads
MORE
�to very high runoff.
the s o i l .
So t h e r e ' s n o t a l o t o f m o i s t u r e t h a t goes i n t o
Secondly, i n c r e a s i n g temperatures tends t o increase
e v a p o r a t i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e s u l t i n g impact o f t h a t i s s o i l
d r y i n g . So you have a combination o f these t h i n g s going on t h a t help
t o e x p l a i n t h i s paradox.
THE PRESIDENT: So I t h i n k t h a t ' s i m p o r t a n t . When t h e
temperatures warm, they d r y t h e s o i l and c r e a t e t h e c o n d i t i o n s f o r
the f l o o d s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y .
DR. WILHITE:
That's c o r r e c t .
THE PRESIDENT: And because these f l o o d s don't wash away
the s o i l , r a t h e r than s i n k down i n t o t h e s o i l , you g e t very l i t t l e
b e n e f i t o u t o f them, and farmers l o s e a l o t o f t o p s o i l .
*****
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a f o l l o w - u p q u e s t i o n , and
perhaps someone e l s e would l i k e t o answer. But I t h i n k i t ' s
i m p o r t a n t again — and f o r g i v e — f o r those o f you i n t h e audience
who know a l o t more about t h i s than I do, you w i l l have t o f o r g i v e
me, b u t I'm a l s o t r y i n g t o imagine how t h i s i s going t o be absorbed
by our n a t i o n and by people who w i l l be f o l l o w i n g t h i s .
I t appears t h a t we are headed i n t o a p o w e r f u l E l Nino,
and I wonder i f one o f you would j u s t simply v e r y b r i e f l y e x p l a i n
what t h a t i s and whether you b e l i e v e t h e r e i s a l i n k between t h e
power o f t h e E l Nino and- c l i m a t e change.
DR. WATSON: Yes. Every two t o seven years we have a
phenomena c a l l e d " t h e E l Nino phenomena." The ocean temperatures o f f
South America i n t h e P a c i f i c warm up and they e f f e c t i v e l y have a
l a r g e - s c a l e e f f e c t on temperature p a t t e r n s and p r e c i p i t a t i o n p a t t e r n s
throughout t h e w o r l d . You g e t heavy r a i n f a l l i n Peru, a drought i n
Northeast B r a z i l , a drought i n Zimbabwe, and major e f f e c t s i n
c o u n t r i e s such as A u s t r a l i a .
One o f t h e questions we have t o ask o u r s e l v e s i s , are
these En Nino events changing?
What we've observed i n t h e l a s t 2 0
years i s we've now had t h e l a r g e s t , most i n t e n s e E l Nino i n 1982 and
i t ' s l o o k i n g l i k e t h e one we have now may w e l l be t h e most i n t e n s e o f
the l a s t 200 years. The q u e s t i o n i s , are we changing t h e frequency
and t h e magnitude o f these s o - c a l l e d E l Nino events because o f g l o b a l
warming? We don't know. But j u s t l i k e t h e r e a r e more f l o o d s a t t h e
moment and more droughts throughout t h e w o r l d , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o
note t h a t as t h e greenhouse gas c o n c e n t r a t i o n s a r e i n c r e a s i n g , i t
does appear t h a t t h e frequency and magnitude o f these E l Nino events
a l s o seems t o be changing, and they have profound e f f e c t s , as I said
e a r l i e r , b o t h on temperature and p r e c i p i t a t i o n t r u l y around t h e
globe.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would j u s t l i k e t o comment on
your remarks concerning t h e s k e p t i c . I p e r s o n a l l y b e l i e v e we've had
experience w i t h a form o f s k e p t i c i s m t h a t I t h i n k i s s i m i l a r t o t h i s
b e f o r e . I n 1964, t h e s c i e n t i f i c community t h r o u g h t h e Surgeon
General's r e p o r t s a i d t h a t smoking c i g a r e t t e s causes l u n g cancer.
And f o r t h e l a s t 33 years, up u n t i l t h i t summer, t h e CEOs o f t h e
tobacco companies s a i d w i t h a s t r a i g h t face and seemingly no
embarrassment, t h e r e i s no l i n k between smoking c i g a r e t t e s and lung
cancer. Some s c i e n t i s t s say even today t h e exact causal r e l a t i o n s h i p
i s v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o p i n down because science can't answer a l l o f t h e
q u e s t i o n s . But i t ' s abundantly obvious t h a t i t does, and t h e
P r e s i d e n t ' s been l e a d i n g our country's f i g h t on t h a t i s s u e . And,
MORE
�- 5 -
thank goodness, e v e n t u a l l y , the weight of t h e p i n i o n got t o be such
t h a t most everybody except t h i s very, very t i n y band became
embarrassed t o p a r r o t t h a t l i n e anymore. I t h i n k t h a t the weight of
evidence here i s i n t h e same category.
THE PRESIDENT: we've got t o wrap up.the f i r s t panel and
get on t o t h e next one, but I ' d l i k e t o ask — I t h i n k I ' d l i k e t o
ask, John, you t o respond t o t h i s . I f anyone e l s e wishes t o , you're
welcome t o . I t h i n k t h e r e i s a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d question t o be
asked, although the Vice President i s r i g h t , t h e r e s t i l l are some
people who c l a i m t h a t t h i s s c i e n t i f i c case t h a t I have been
completely persuaded by has not been made. I t h i n k the more
d i f f i c u l t argument, John, goes something l i k e t h i s : Look, you put
a l l t h i s s t u f f i n the atmosphere and i t stays t h e r e f o r 100 years a t
l e a s t , and maybe longer, and so what's the hurry?
I n a democracy, i t ' s very hard t o a r t i f i c i a l l y impose
t h i n g s on people they can't t a n g i b l y f e e l , and so why shouldn't we
j u s t keep on r o c k i n g along w i t h the k i n d of t e c h n o l o g i c a l progress
we're making now u n t i l t h e r e r e a l l y i s both b e t t e r s c i e n t i f i c
i n f o r m a t i o n and completely p a i n l e s s t e c h n o l o g i c a l f i x e s t h a t are
apparent t o a l l ? Why shouldn't we j u s t w a i t u n t i l a l l doubt has been
r e s o l v e d and h o p e f u l l y we have even b e t t e r technology?
Because,
a f t e r a l l , t h e f u l l impact of whatever we do i f we s t a r t tomorrow
won't be f e l t f o r a decade and maybe even f o r a century.
Number one, i f t h a t ' s t r u e , how q u i c k l y could we lower
the temperature of t h e p l a n e t below what i t otherwise would be; and,
number two, what about the argument on the m e r i t s ?
DR. HOLDREN: Mr.' P r e s i d e n t , l e t me take a t r y a t
addressing t h a t . I t ' s c l e a r t h a t t h e t a s k t h a t you and o t h e r
policymakers face i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s a tough one.
Business as
usual i s what most people are comfortable w i t h . The d i f f i c u l t y i s
t h a t our h e a l t h and our economic w e l l - b e i n g are more dependent on
c l i m a t e than most people t h i n k .
Human d i s r u p t i o n of c l i m a t e by greenhouse gas emissions
i s almost c e r t a i n l y f u r t h e r along than most people t h i n k , and
d i r e c t l y addressing t h e p o i n t you were j u s t making, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions enough t o a v e r t much l a r g e r d i s r u p t i o n than
experienced so f a r i s going t o be more d i f f i c u l t than most people
t h i n k . And t h e longer we w a i t , t h e more we coast up t h a t businessas-usual t r a j e c t o r y , t h e more o l d - s t y l e t e c h n o l o g i e s are going t o be
i n place i n t h i s c o u n t r y and around t h e w o r l d and t h e harder i t i s
going t o be t o get o f f of t h a t t r a c k .
The goal of t h e framework convention on c l i m a t e change
t o which t h e U n i t e d States i s a p a r t y wc.s r a t i f i e d by t h e United
States Senate i n 1992 i s t o s t a b i l i z e greenhouse gas c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
a t a l e v e l t h a t prevents dangerous human i n t e r f e r e n c e i n the c l i m a t e
system.
Now, t h e r e i s no formal agreement y e t about what
c o n s t i t u t e s dangerous i n t e r f e r e n c e , but I know of very few a n a l y s t s
who have looked s e r i o u s l y a t the impact s i d e of t h i s q u e s t i o n who
t h i n k t h a t going beyond t w i c e the p r e i n d u s t r i a l carbon d i o x i d e
c o n c e n t r a t i o n i s a n y t h i n g o t h e r than very dangerous. That would be
about 550 p a r t s per m i l l i o n , compared t o 365 p a r t s per m i l l i o n today,
280 p a r t s per m i l l i o n p r e i n d u s t r i a l , and you saw e a r l i e r a s i m u l a t i o n
o f t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e temperature changes t h a t t h a t would e n t a i l .
Now, t h e problem i s t h a t s t o p p i n g even a t t h a t 550 p a r t
per m i l l i o n l e v e l , t w i c e p r e i n d u s t r i a l , i s not going t o be easy.
The
curves t h a t are on the screen now show f u t u r e w o r l d emissions of
carbon d i o x i d e under business as u s u a l , which i s t h e r e d d i s h l i n e a t
the t o p , and then under t h r e e t r a j e c t o r i e s t h a t would s t a b i l i z e the
c o n c e n t r a t i o n a t l e v e l s ranging from 350 p a r t s per m i l l i o n on the
MORE
�- 6 bottom — a l i t t l e less than today's — to 750 parts per m i l l i o n on
the highest of the lines that bend over; another orange one.
The green one i n the middle i s the 550 parts per million
trajectory, the trajectory that stabilizes at twice preindustrial
C02. Now, that lowest trajectory might be the most desirable from
the standpoint of giving us the greatest assurance of avoiding
climatic changes that we really won't l i k e , but i t ' s v i r t u a l l y not
practical to get to that, and we're already past the point where we
can get to that trajectory. In fact, i f you could see the scale more
clearly, you would see that that one requires the emissions to go
negative early i n the next century, which i s p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t
to manage.
Now, the green trajectory that stabilizes at a doubling
of preindustrial carbon dioxide concentrations requires that global
emissions — global emissions, not U.S., but worldwide including the
developing countries, s t a r t to decline already i n about the year
2 030, and they do that from a peak i n which average per capita
emissions worldwide would be only o n e - f i f t h of U.S. per capita
emissions today. That's going to be very hard to do and i f we're
going to do i t we need to s t a r t working on i t today.
The problem basically i s that the world energy economic
system i s a l o t l i k e a supertanker under f u l l power; i t ' s got huge
momentum i n the direction i t ' s heading, i t ' s very hard to steer, i t ' s
got very bad brakes.
The science that has been summarized here t h i s morning
is t e l l i n g us that the supertanker i s headed for a reef. We can t e l l
the water i s getting shallower under the h u l l ; even i f we can't say
exactly how far we can go before the reef rips the bottom out of that
tanker. Now, i n that s i t u a t i o n , f u l l speed ahead i s clearly the
wrong course. We need to s t a r t slowing and steering away from the
reef of unmanageable degrees of climate change now. And since we're
a l l i n the same supertanker, industrialized and less developed
countries together, we had better f i n d ways to slow and to steer
cooperatively rather than bickering over who i s holding the wheel.
We've got a l o t of tools available to help us with that
steering e f f o r t . There are advanced technologies already on the
shelf that can help us dramatically increase the efficiency of energy
and use and can reduce sharply the emissions of carbon dioxide from
energy supply. We need only some sensible attention to reducing the
barriers t o the more rapid and widespread d i f f u s i o n of those advanced
technologies already on the shelf and there are new technologies that
can be brought to the point of a p p l i c a b i l i t y with expanded research
and development that would make increased energy efficiency and
reduced carbon emissions even more cost-effective.
But now I'm basically getting into parts of the story
that other panels are going to deal with l a t e r today and I ' l l leave
that to them.
THE PRESIDENT: But I do want to make the following
points. Number one, we can't get to the green l i n e unless there i s a
global agreement that involves both the developing and the developed
countries. Number two, however, that's not an excuse for us to do
nothing because i f we do something i t w i l l be better than i t would
have been otherwise because we're s t i l l the biggest contributor and
w i l l be u n t i l sometime well into the next century.
And, number three, based or. everything we know, i t w i l l
be easier i n some ways, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f they get the financial help
they need, for developing countries to f.hoose a d i f f e r e n t energy
future i n the f i r s t place than i t w i l l be for the developed countries
to make the adjustments, which i s not t o say we don't have to make
the adjustments, but to say that I have read a l o t of the press
MR
OE
�coverage and people saying, oh, well, we're just using t h i s for an
excuse or we're not being f a i r to them or we don't want them to have
a chance t o grow. That i s not true.
The United States cannot maintain and enhance i t s own
standard of l i v i n g unless the developing nations grow and grow
rapidly. We support that. But they can choose a d i f f e r e n t energy
future, and that has t o be a part of t h i s , but i t ' s not an excuse for
us t o do nothing, because whatever we do we're going t o make i t
better f o r ourselves and for the rest of the world than i t otherwise
would have been.
But I think i t ' s important t o point out what John showed
us there on the green l i n e . The green l i n e — i t requires — to
reach the green l i n e , we have t o have a worldwide action plan.
* * * **
THE PRESIDENT: Let me just say before we go on t o the
transportation sector, these presentations have been quite important.
I remember 20 years ago, more or less — maybe a l i t t l e less now, I
can't remember exactly when — the Congress voted, or the federal
government at least required — i t might have been a regulatory
action — that the new power plants not use natural gas anymore and
that we phase out of them because we grossly underestimated how much
natural gas we had and we thought we could go t o clean coal because
we didn't want t o build nuclear plants for a l l the reasons that were
clear.
And one of the biggest problems we face now i n t r y i n g to
make a reasoned judgment about how quickly we can reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, and by how much, i s the need not t o be unfair t o
e l e c t r i c u t i l i t i e s that have b i l l i o n s of dollars invested i n
government-approved power plants that they have not yet f u l l y
amortized.
Therefore, insofar — and t h i s applies both t o buildings
and t o the u t i l i t i e s themselves about which these two speakers have
spoken. You can either conserve more i n the production of
e l e c t r i c i t y or you can have the people who consume i t conserve more
or you can change the basis on which the plants work, which i s the
most expensive way t o do i t . Therefore, insofar as we can do more i n
terms of how much e l e c t r i c i t y people use or how much waste heat you
recover, either one of those things i s a f a r preferable — f a r
preferable alternative than t o change the basis on which plants that
have already been b u i l t are being amortized, and w i l l generate huge
amounts of saving at lower costs i f we can do i t .
At the end of t h i s session, we'll get around t o sort of
the skeptical economist's take on the technological f i x . We'll get
around t o that l a t e r . But I j u s t think i t ' s important that we focus
on t h i s specific issue, because i f our goal i s t o minimize economic
dislocation, then having conservation by the end users, the people
who have the buildings, for example, whether t h e i r manufacturers or
residential buildings or otherwise business buildings, and having
recovery of waste heat are clear, I think, the preferable
alternatives and clearly the less expensive alternatives.
I'd l i k e t o c a l l on Mary Good now, who was the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Technology i n our administration f o r four
years and now i s the managing member of Venture Capital Investors. I
want her t o t a l k a l i t t l e b i t about the potential f o r technological
advances t o reduce emissions i n the transportation sector and t o
focus p a r t i c u l a r l y on the partnership for new generation vehicles
that we've been working on with the auto companies and the UAW since
t h i s administration took o f f i c e , and Mary had a l o t t o do with i t .
MR
OE
�- 8 -
There i e a l s o a huge debate here about how much we can
do how q u i c k l y , and we have t o make the best judgment about t h i s i n
d e t e r m i n i n g what t o say about where we are i n Kyoto, because
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , as Secretary Pena s a i d , occupies such a l a r g e p a r t of
t h i s whole equation.
So, Mary, have a t i t .
Japan on my v i s i t .
T e l l me what I should say i n
*****
THE PRESIDENT: I j u s t wanted t o make two b r i e f p o i n t s .
The leaders of the Big Three auto companies and the UAW came i n t o
see us l a s t week, and they s a i d t h e y ' r e going t o meet t h e i r
P a r t n e r s h i p f o r the Next Generation V e h i c l e g o a l . The r e a l problem
i s , once they develop a p r o t o t y p e , how q u i c k l y can i t be massproduced and how w i l l people buy i t , and w i l l they buy i t a t present
f u e l p r i c e s . We'll come back t o t h a t a t the end.
But one r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n t o t h a t i s , given Americans
buying h a b i t s and consumer preferences, don't we have t o i n c l u d e
these l i g h t t r u c k s and even heavy t r u c k s i n t h i s P a r t n e r s h i p f o r the
Next Generation V e h i c l e ; don't we have t o achieve s i g n i f i c a n t f u e l
e f f i c i e n c i e s t h e r e as w e l l i f we have any hope o f succeeding here.
The o n l y p o i n t I want t o make, Mary, i s , you know, I'm
b i g on a l l kinds o f f a s t r a i l research, but I hope tomorrow's
h e a d l i n e i s n ' t " C l i n t o n Advocates More Research on L e v i t a t i o n . "
(Laughter.) I don't need t h a t .
MS.
GOOD: We'll have t o e x p l a i n i t t o them b e t t e r .
THE PRESIDENT: I ' d l i k e t o c a l l on Michael Bonsignore
now t o t a l k about the energy savings a v a i l a b l e through t h e use of
more h i g h - e f f i c i e n c y products and systems, and a l s o the p o t e n t i a l f o r
environmental technology e x p o r t s . What he has t o say and how
a p p l i c a b l e and expandable you b e l i e v e i t i s has a l o t t o do w i t h
whether t h i s t r a n s i t i o n we're going through w i l l be an economic p l u s ,
a drag, or a wash. I p e r s o n a l l y have always b e l i e v e d i t would be a
p l u s i f we d i d i t r i g h t . But I ' d l i k e t o ask Michael t o t a l k about
that.
*****
THE PRESIDENT: We need t o wrap up; we're running a
l i t t l e b i t l a t e . But I wanted t o j u s t g i v e everyone an o p p o r t u n i t y
t o comment on t h i s . Mason was the only person, I t h i n k , who
e x p l i c i t l y s a i d t h a t i n order t o make t h i s t r a n s i t i o n we need t o
r a i s e t h e p r i c e of carbon-based products. One of t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s
we're having w i t h i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n reaching a proper judgment
about what p o s i t i o n t o stake out i n Kyoto r e l a t e s t o how v a r i o u s
people are responding, f r a n k l y , t o the recommendations and the
f i n d i n g s o f t h e people coming out o f the energy l a b s , because they
say, hey, l o o k , what we know a l r e a d y shows you t h a t we have r e a d i l y
a v a i l a b l e t e c h n o l o g i e s and courses o f a c t i o n which would take a huge
hunk out of — r i g h t now, w i t h no g r e a t increased cost — a huge hunk
out o f any attempt t o , l e t ' s say, f l a t t e n our greenhouse gas
emissions a t 1990 l e v e l s .
We j u s t heard about i t today.
Look what you could do
w i t h power p l a n t s . You can r e c a p t u r e tire waste heat, t w o - t h i r d s of
t h a t . You can make b u i l d i n g s and manufdcturing f a c i l i t i e s and
residences much more energy e f f i c i e n t .
You can make t r a n s p o r t a t i o n
MORE
�- 9 -
much more energy e f f i c i e n t . Besides t h a t , we've g o t a l l these
a l t e r n a t i v e sources of f u e l f o r e l e c t r i c i t y and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n .
mean, i t ' s a l l o u t t h e r e ; t h i s i s what we know now.
I
And then sooner o r l a t e r , we're going t o have t h e
P a r t n e r s h i p f o r t h e Next Generation V e h i c l e . So t h e q u e s t i o n i s
always, though, who w i l l buy t h i s s t u f f . Right now, you can buy
l i g h t bulbs — every one o f us could have every l i g h t bulb i n our
home, r i g h t now, every s i n g l e one o f them — we'd have t o pay 60
percent more f o r t h e l i g h t b u l b , b u t i t would have t h r e e times t h e
useful l i f e .
Therefore, you j u s t work i t o u t , we'd pay more up
f r o n t , we'd save more money i n t h e long r u n , and we'd use a whole l o t
l e s s carbon. And why don't we do i t ? why do we have any o t h e r k i n d
of l i g h t bulbs i n our homes?
And t h a t i s t h e s i m p l e s t example o f t h e nature of t h e
debate we are now having. That i s , i n terms o f g e t from here t o
where we want t o go, do we have t o e i t h e r r a i s e t h e p r i c e of t h e
product — t h e r e are o n l y t h r e e o r f o u r t h i n g s you can do — you can
r a i s e t h e p r i c e o f t h e product t o t h e consumers; you can lower t h e
p r i c e o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t h i n g you wish t o be bought by t h e
consumers; you can c r e a t e some new business o p p o r t u n i t y through some
market p e r m i t t r a d i n g , o t h e r market o p t i o n o r otherwise change t h e
business environment t h e way we do e l e c t r i c d e r e g u l a t i o n , f o r
example; o r you can somehow increase the awareness o f consumers o f
what t h e i r o p t i o n s are and t h e consequences o f t h a t , and hope t h a t
they w i l l behave i n a d i f f e r e n t way. I t h i n k those are t h e f o u r
categories of p o s s i b i l i t i e s .
And i f you choose an ambitious t a r g e t , then, i f t h e
requirement i s more — t o reach t h e t a r g e t i s almost e x c l u s i v e l y on
the f r o n t end — t h a t i s , you have t o r a i s e t h e p r i c e t o t h e consumer
or t h e business i n v o l v e d — t h e businesses may be a consumer — i f i t
happens t o o q u i c k l y , you're going t o do economic damage on t h e one
hand, on t h e o t h e r hand t h e r e i s no way i n t h e w o r l d t h i s Senate w i l l
r a t i f y our p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Kyoto.
So w e ' l l be o u t t h e r e — i t w i l l
be a grand g e s t u r e , b u t i t won't happen.
Therefore, we have g o t t o know how much we can do
through a combination o f p r i c e — you might be able t o g e t some p r i c e
changes, p a r t i c u l a r l y going back t o what Mike says on t h e r e a l p r i c e
of energy — p a r t i c u l a r l y i f i t was n o t a n e t t a x increase, you
wouldn't have t o have.a net — t h e r e are a l o t o f o t h e r ways t o do
t h i s . But we have t o be able t o g e t something out o f e i t h e r l o w e r i n g
the c o s t o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , c r e a t i n g new business markets, o r
i n c r e a s i n g consumer awareness o f what i s r i g h t t h e r e f o r them now and
what t h e consequences are. We can't do i t a l l on t h e f r o n t end and
expect r e a l i s t i c a l l y — i f a l l we do on t h e Consumer P r i c e Index,
r a i s i n g the price of coal, raising the price of o i l t o the real
consumer, and t h a t ' s a l l we do, we are not going t o g e t what we want
t o do i n t h e time a l l o t t e d t o g e t i t because i t e i t h e r won't pass t h e
Senate o r i t won't pass muster w i t h t h e American people.
So we have t o be able t o access what t h e Energy
Department t e l l s us i s t h e r e f o r a l l - t o see i n o t h e r ways. And I
don't know i f any o f you want t o comment on t h a t , b u t t h i s i s not a
q u e s t i o n o f whether you're brave o r not or a l l t h a t , i t ' s r e a l l y a
q u e s t i o n o f what we can g e t done and whet r e a l i s t i c a l l y i s going t o
happen i n America.
But I'm plagued by t h e example o f t h e l i g h t bulb I have
i n my l i v i n g room o f t h e White House t h a t I read under a t n i g h t , and
I ask myself, why i s n ' t every l i g h t bulb i n t h e White House l i k e
this.
I use t h i s when ~ I g e t so t i c k l e d ~ I go i n and t u r n i t on
and I measure how much longer i t takes t o r e a l l y l i g h t up, b u t I know
i t ' s going t o be t h e r e long ~ you know? (Laughter.) And I say, why
am I so i r r e s p o n s i b l e t h a t I have n o t p u t t h i s i n every l i g h t bulb?
Why are we n o t a l l doing t h i s ?
�- 10 -
So when you g e t r i g h t down t o i t , now, t h i s i s where the
rubber meets t h e road. We have t o make a d e c i s i o n , a commitment; i t
has t o be meaningful. I'm convinced t h a t t h e Energy Department l a b
people are a b s o l u t e l y r i g h t , b u t t h e s k e p t i c s on my economic team
s a i d , t h e r e w i l l n o t be p e r f e c t s u b s t i t u t i o n , t h e y ' r e n o t going t o do
it.
So i f you want t o say a n y t h i n g about t h a t , you can, but
when you g e t r i g h t down t o i t , t h a t ' s where ~ a l l t h e d e c i s i o n s are
going t o be made based on our best judgment about what k i n d o f
markets we can c r e a t e f o r t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r , what k i n d o f
s u b s t i t u t i o n t h e r e i s , and whether we can ~ how q u i c k l y we can move
t o a l t e r n a t i v e energy sources t h a t peopla w i l l a c t u a l l y access.
*****
THE PRESIDENT:
I s t r o n g l y agree w i t h t h a t , pushing
t h a t . And, again, I say t h a t does not l e t us o f f t h e hook t o do
t h i n g s here a t home, i t j u s t makes good sense. I t ' s e a s i e r f o r — we
should g i v e these o t h e r c o u n t r i e s a chance t o choose an a l t e r n a t i v e
path.
I never w i l l f o r g e t a couple o f years ago —
I know
we've g o t t o wrap up — b u t I had a f a s c i n a t i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h the
P r e s i d e n t o f China a couple o f years ago, and we were d i s c u s s i n g what
our f u t u r e would be and weather we wished t o c o n t a i n China. And I
s a i d , I don't wish t o c o n t a i n China, I s a i d , t h e b i g g e s t s e c u r i t y
t h r e a t China presents t h e United States i s t h a t you w i l l i n s i s t on
g e t t i n g r i c h t h e same way we d i d .
And he looked a t me, and I could
t e l l he had never thought o f t h a t . And I s a i d , you have t o choose a
d i f f e r e n t f u t u r e , and we have t o h e l p . We have t o support you. And
t h a t does n o t i n any way l e t us o f f t h e hook. But i t j u s t means t h a t
we have t o do t h i s t o g e t h e r .
W e l l , t h i s has been f a s c i n a t i n g .
g r e a t , and I thank you a l o t .
(Applause.)
END
MORE
You guys have been
�IS i • "^-i
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
AN EAST ROOM ROUNDTABLE
The White House
July 24, 1997
�State of Knowledge
�The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of
1976. OSTP is responsible for advising the President on all questions in which
science and technology are important elements, including climate change.
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 12, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
J.W. Marriott Hotel
Washington, D.C.
4:37 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Don, for
your introduction and for the good work that you do and that we have tried to do together. I'm
delighted to be joined here today be several members of the administration. I see Secretary
Daley, Secretary Herman, our NEC Chair Gene Sperling, my Presidential Advisor for Public
Liaison Maria Echaveste, and Mack McLarty, who is known to many of you for the many hats
he has worn and now among another things is my special envoy to Latin America.
I wanted to come today to talk to you at what we all know is a very hopeful time about
what we have to do together to keep our economy growing and to prepare America for the 21 st
century. With the lowest unemployment in 24 years the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest
corporate profit in more than two decades, the biggest drop in inequality of incomes among
working people last year since the 1960s, and a stock market that has done reasonably well
--(laughter) ~ we also have had the biggest drop in crime last year in 35 years, and now five
years in a row of crime going down, by far the largest drop in the welfare rolls ever since 1994
when it reached its all time peak. Our country is also leading the world again in exports and
cutting edge technologies. And we can be forgiven if we now hope that we can make the 21 st
century like the 20th century ~ another American century.
The great credit for this remarkable economic turnaround goes primarily to American
businesses and workers, to small businesses and entrepreneurs, to those on the cutting edge of
research and development, to the responsible policies of the Federal Reserve. But I also like to
think that our new economic policy had a little something to do with it as well.
In 1993, we replaced trickle-down economics, which had quadrupled the nation's debt,
with invest-and-grow economics -starting with cutting the deficit. We cut it from $290 billion a
year to what is estimated to be about $67 billion this year. That is a 77 percent reduction based
on the 1993 plan. Now, with the balanced budget agreement that the administration has reached
with the Congress, it will go to zero.
�Second, we have invested in the skills and education of our people -- beginning to put in
place a system of life-long learning for all Americans, which starts with expanding Head Start
and includes raising academic standards, opening wider the doors of college, improving job
training for employees, and developing with the business community, in every state,
school-to-work partnerships for those who don't go on to four-year colleges or universities.
Third, we have vigorously worked to open markets for American products. With
NAFTA, GATT, and over 200 other hard-won trade agreements, our exports and at an all-time
high and will be further advanced by the agreements recently reached in telecommunications and
information technology. Fiscal responsibility, investing in people, free and fair trade. That has
been our economic strategy.
We have also tried to modernize and improve the way the government works with the
private sector. The federal government now has 300,000 fewer people working for it than it did
the day I became President in 1993, some 16,000 fewer pages of regulations, hundreds of fewer
government programs ~ but more importantly, genuine partnerships with all different kinds of
industries to grow the economy and preserve the environment and to reach other genuine and
legitimate aims of the American people, including moving people from welfare to work and
giving our children a greater future ~ things to which Don alluded.
The results of your efforts and ours and our partnership have made the United States
once again the envy of the world. I read the business magazines when they come out, and they're
a long way from where they were in 1993, when I didn't enjoy reading them so much. Now there
is a hyperbole contest. One says this is the best economy in 30 years; another says it's the best
it's ever been. I don't feel the need to resolve that debate. (Laughter.) Regardless, that's a
high-class problem.
But we know that underneath that there are other challenges facing us, so I came here to
say I think we can keep this going; I believe we can do better. But it will require us to make
some critical choices in the coming months that will determine whether we will keep to the
vision and the partnership and the forward march that we are on, or abandon it.
First, we have to finish the job of balancing the budget, and that means we have to
implement this budget agreement in good faith. It will happen in two steps. In the beginning
there will be votes on what's called a reconciliation package for the multi-year spending and the
multi-year tax cut between now and 2002, and then there must be votes on next year's
appropriations which are faithful to the budget agreement and to the reconciliation package.
It is absolutely essential for both Republicans and Democrats, especially those who
voted for the agreement -- in the House, nearly two-thirds of the Democrats and nearly 90
percent of the Republicans, in the Senate over 80 percent of the Democrats and just over 70
percent of the Republicans who carried with overwhelming bipartisan support in both Houses
with one party having the greater percentage in one House, the other in the other House ~ it is
essential now to implement the agreement in good faith. It is quite specific, and ambiguous on
�very, very few points.
If we had enough changes around the edges that some want to make, pretty soon we
could make the edges ragged enough to unravel the fabric of the agreement. I do not expect that
to happen, I expect it to be implemented, but you will see a lot of efforts, I think, in the next few
weeks and months to get people to hold to the terms of the agreement. And since you support
the agreement, I hope you will support the discipline necessary to hold to its terms.
The second test will be whether we can make good on the critical need to invest in our
people and especially in education and training. This budget contains the biggest increase in
educational investment since the 1960s. And arguably, in making universal access to the first
two years of college after high school so that it can become just as prevalent as a high school
diploma is today, it is the biggest advance in opportunity for all Americans in education since
the G.I. Bill.
In addition to that, it contains the funding necessary for us to conduct a national
examination of all 4th graders in reading and all 8th graders in math, according to generally
accepted national standards in 1999. I want to again say, of all the things the Business
Roundtable has done that I am grateful for, there is nothing that I appreciate more than your
steadfast adherence to the cause of high national academic standards and the proposition that
all our children can leam, should be expected to leam and should be measured against those
standards. I want to particularly thank you and thank my long-time friend and fellow Arkansan
Brooks Robinson for going public on this and thank you for mobilizing other baseball players
and getting the Orioles involved. Stay with this.
Even though we just this week had evidence that our 4th graders rank well above the
national average in the Third International Math and Science Test, there are states that are
reluctant to participate, and it is wrong. It is wrong to pretend that this is some sort of a
government plot to take over the schools, which it isn't, or that somehow math is different in
Washington State than it is in Maine, and that physics is different in Miami than it is in Montana.
That is not true. And we, and you especially, have an interest in our hanging tough on this.
So we can do it. Already, since I called for this in the State of the Union, we have
education leaders in states reflecting about ~ now over 20 percent of the school students in our
country willing to participate, but we ought not to stop until we have 100 percent. And I thank
you for your support of that.
And let me finally say just one more word about the budget agreement. The budget
agreement has a unique provision for tax relief, and I think that the amount can be afforded, and
the framework of the tax relief is set out in the budget agreement. For me, the tax package that
they will send to my desk should meet five tests. One, and most important, it's got to be faithful
to the agreement. If you want to know what it can do, just read the agreement. Second, it should
help the economy grow. Third, it should be fair to working families. Fourth, it should target our
top priority of education. And finally, it should not explode the deficit in later years and make it
more difficult to meet the fiscal challenges we will face as the baby boom nears retirement.
�Now, the amount fixed in the agreement was $85 billion in the first year -- first five
years, and a little less than twice that in the second five years, which allows for natural growth.
In the ten-year window that we have agreed to, this is ~ to give you some perspective ~ will
provide for a lot of possibilities, but it's about one-tenth the total cost of the 1981 tax cut, much
of which, as you'll remember, had to be undone in 1982 and then in subsequent years because of
what happened to the deficit. We don't want to go down that road again, so there are strict limits.
Within these limits, I favor tax relief to help families raise their children and send them
to college, to pay for lifetime learning, to own a home. I could support a pro-growth capital
gains tax relief package, along with some help to ease the burdens of estate taxes on small
businesses and family farms - as long as these tax relief measures are consistent with the budget
agreement, and especially consistent not only with thefive-yeartime window but the 10-year
time window. We are trying to balance the budget over a long period of time, not just have it
balanced in one year and have it bump up again in the next year and leave our successors here
another set of headaches.
Now, from my point of view, the tax package revealed by the Republicans in the House
Ways and Means Committee does not meet all those standards. One of the biggest challenges
Americans have today ~ and you know this, all your employees do ~ even upper income people
— is balancing the demands of work and family, raising a child and doing your job.
I believe the package that was revealed this week by the House committee would make
that job more difficult for millions of Americans for the following reasons. First, it explicitly
excludes 4 million of our hardest-pressed families from receiving the child tax credit ~ I think
that's a mistake ~ because their incomes are so modest, they qualify for the Earned Income Tax
Credit under present tax law.
Another provision actually penalizes families with
working mothers by saying that parents who receive tax relief for child care under present tax
law will have their children's tax credit cut. I think that is wrong. I don't think that we should
single out working families who need child care for less tax relief. I cannot let that provision
stand. And since a lot of you employ members of those working families, I hope you will stand
with me on that in opposing it.
Nonetheless, let me say that, on balance, I think good things are happening. It is bound
to be that in the beginning of this skirmish there will be a lot of particular proposals made that
are inconsistent with the budget agreement. Why? Because the budget agreement, while it was
voted on by the whole Congress, was developed by just a few people. And I would dare say that
not everybody who voted on it has read every word of it.
So don't get too upset or distracted or think that things are hopeless if we get into a big
fight here over an issue or two, because it's part of the inevitable process of going from the
terms of the budget agreement to the specifics of a reconciliation package and then to the even
more specific appropriation bills that will have to pass later in the year.
�The third big test, after our investment priorities and balancing the budget, is whether we
will continue to lead the world in trade. I have to say that it is somewhat mysterious to me that
we seem to have, if anything, even more opposition to expanding trade in 1997 than we did when
we had the critical vote in 1993, and then again on GATT in 1994, when we have more evidence
that our policy works.
With the 200 trade agreements that were negotiated in the first four years I was President
went along over 12 million new jobs -- the first time in history one four-year term ever saw the
American people produce over 12 million new jobs. The unemployment rate is at 4.8 percent for
the first time in 24 years, since 1973. And, in the last two years, more than half of the new jobs
created in this country have been in categories that pay wages above the average. We know that
trade-related jobs pay above the average. So it's not like we don't have any evidence here.
Yet, in the face of all this evidence, it appears to me that there are some people ~ in both
parties, I might say ~ who are afraid to give the President the same authority that every President
since Gerald Ford has had to negotiate fast-track agreements ~ not just with specific countries
but within the framework of the general trade regimes of which we're a part.
I do not believe we have anything to fear from more trade with Chile. I do not believe
we have anything to fear from more trade with Argentina and Brazil. I believe we would be
making a terrible political, as well as a terrible economic, mistake to walk away from the
democratic and free market movement that is sweeping the world and especially our neighbors in
South America, who have known so much heartache in the past from oppression and poverty,
and have given us a lot of heartburn in the 20th century, growing out of the governments they
had and the suffering of their own people. Now we have a chance to solidify a much more
positive movement, and we know it is good for us because we have the evidence.
So I hope that you will help us win the fast track vote.
I also know that there is, if anything, even more at least emotional opposition to the
extension of MFN to China. You know what a lot of our fellow country men and women don't,
which is that MFN is the most wrongly worded term in government language. And that's a
mouthful. (Laughter.) We do not seek any special favors for China. We seek simply to continue
the status quo ~ treating them as we do other normal trading partners. We believe that it will
help us to maintain a stable, open, and peaceful China. We believe that our interest is having a
China that is not only stable and open, but one that is non-aggressive, that respects human rights,
works to strengthen the rule of law, and works with us to build a more secure international order.
Now, we have great disagreements with China. The question is, can we influence China
best by treating them differently from all of our other trading partners for the first time in a very
long time, or can we influence them more by giving the possibility of genuine partnership?
Every President since 1980 has extended MFN to China. Ending that would end our
strategic dialogue, which has led to cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation issues, to stability
on the Korean Peninsula, to the protection of American intellectual property rights. All of that
�cooperation would go by the boards. It would close one of the world's largest markets to our
people and our businesses and our exports. It could put in danger some 170,000 American jobs
today. It would make China more isolated and remove incentives to play by the rules of
international conduct.
Revoking normal trade treatment would have grave consequences especially now, I'm
afraid, as we stand on the eve of Hong Kong's reversion. In 1984, Great Britain and China made
an agreement about the terms under which Hong Kong would revert and asked the United States,
when President Reagan held this office, to bless the agreement. The United States did that. We
expect the agreement to be honored - one China, two systems. We think it should be.
Ending MFN now would shatter any claim to influence we have on that important
subject. Half of all China's trade flows through Hong Kong. Revocation would have a more
devastating effect on Hong Kong probably than China as a whole. All the political leaders in
Hong Kong across the political spectrum, including the most ardent human rights and democracy
advocates, have implored us to continue MFN with China and not to revoke it.
So what I say to you and what I know you agree with, but I hope you will say to
members of Congress in both parties, is that this is not about whether we agree with China on
every issue. It's not about whether we have profound disagreements with them. It is
about what is the interest of the American people and what is most likely to give us the largest
amount of influence and cooperation with China in the years ahead.
We have to continue to speak out for human rights, and we have, and we will. We have
worked with the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Our State Department issues
unvarnished annual reports. We meet with China's leaders on human rights initiatives. We talk
about expanding Radio Free Asia's broadcast to China in Mandarin.
And all of us have to do more on these important issues. We have supported and will
continue to support programs to advance civil society and the rule of law in China. And I ask
America's business community to join with us to contribute to programs that will support the rule
of law in China and in other countries where it is desperately needed.
We need more educational exchanges, more training centers for lawyers and judges,
more support for those who stand against corruption. You have great interest in rules that are
predictable and consistent. It will help democratic society eventually to emerge and serve our
values as well as our interests. But we cannot do it, I would argue, if we cut off our relations
with China in trade.
The road ahead may not be entirely uniform and will be unpredictable and will be rough,
but you can disagree with people and still do business with them, knowing that if you're talking
to them and working with them, the incentives not to go over the edge to truly destructive
behavior and a more isolated world are always there. That is what I believe is in the interests of
the American people. (Applause.)
�I would point out, too, that I have been heartened by the growing support among
religious leaders in the United States for continuation of MFN status based on the ability of
people in China of different religious faiths to practice their religion. So we're broadening the
support. But again I ask you, please help us with this. There are a lot of people of great and
genuine conviction on the other side of this issue, but I think the evidence is on our side
and I hope we can prevail.
Let me say, finally, that there are a few other things that I think we have to do beyond
these three issues of finishing the work of the budget, investing in our people, and expanding
trade. This moment of prosperity and stability has given us an opportunity to work together to
repair our social fabric, to join together to face those issues which, if we don't face them, could
flare into crises and keep us from becoming the nation we ought to be in the new century.
And let me just mention a few. You were kind enough to mention the Summit of Service
that President Bush, President Carter, Mrs. Reagan, and General Powell and I and others
sponsored in Philadelphia. One of the things we have to do if we want to give our children a
better future is to help their parents be gainfully employed. We were able to reduce the welfare
rolls dramatically because of a growing economy and because of work we did with states before
the passage of the welfare reform bill to help them move people from welfare to work.
Now, this welfare reform bill did two things. It required people on welfare who are
able-bodied to move from welfare to work within a certain amount of time, and it gave the states
in a block grant funds that used to be spent in a federal entitlement so that they would have more
flexibility to create incentives for people to move from welfare to work.
Forty of our states now have a windfall there because they're getting money based on
how much they got when the welfare rolls were at their peak, and there has been a 20
percent-plus drop in the welfare rolls in the last three years.
I urge you, in all the states that you're working in, to get the governors, to get the
legislators to work with the business community to spend that money in ways that, with your
efforts, can move a million more people from welfare to work in the next four years. We moved
a million people in the last four when we were creating 12 million jobs ~ that had never been
done before, the 12 million jobs. Neither had the million people.
Under the terms of this welfare reform law, whether we create 12 million jobs or not in
the private sector, we have to move nearly another million people. We have got to have your
help. But the states have the power to do things like give employers the welfare check for a year
or two to use as an employment and training subsidy for people that are especially hard to place;
to spend even more money on child care; to spend money on education and training.
So I implore you to help us do this. It will be a terrible thing if, having called for welfare
reform and personal responsibility, the end of it is to wind up hurting poor people. That was
never what was intended. The children should not suffer in this. And you are going to have to
take the lead in helping to do this.
�The second thing I'd like to say is, we have to -- now having faced the structural budget
deficit in the country ~ we have to deal with the generational deficit. That means we have to
have long-term entitlement reform to face the realities of the baby boom generation retiring. And
1 will be ~ as soon as we get the budget out of the way, I'll be working with the bipartisan
leadership in Congress on an approach to that, and I ask for your support.
It also means that we have to fulfill the mission of the Philadelphia summit, with the
public and the private sectors doing their jobs. Remember what the Philadelphia Summit was
about: every child ought to have a safe place to grow up, decent health care, a good education
and marketable skills, a mentor and the chance to serve.
And we live in a country where 11 percent of the people over 65 are poor, but 20
percent-plus of the people under 18 are. And we cannot do well unless we do better by our
children. So this inter-generational thing is about entitlement reform, but it's also about giving
our kids a better chance.
The third issue — the one I'm going to speak about in San Diego in a couple of days —
and that is the challenge presented to us as we become the world's first truly multi-racial
democracy. We have five school districts in America today with kids from over 100 different
racial and ethnic groups ~ five. We'll soon have 12.
We have ~ we all know this, but my Baptist minister from Arkansas came up to see me
during the Inaugural and he told me he had a cousin who had a Baptist church across the river
here in Virginia that now has a Korean mission and runs English as a second language classes
out of the church. There are thousands of stories like this.
And yet we know that there are still dramatically different perceptions among different
racial and ethnic groups, starting with the historic tensions that have existed between African
Americans and whites in the country and layered on by the successive waves of immigrants that
pose great challenges to us.
When you look at how the world is being torn asunder in the Middle East, in Bosnia, in
Northern Ireland, and Africa, by people who would rather kill each other over their differences
than celebrate what they share, you realize that what we are trying to do here is truly astonishing.
Within the decade, more than one state in America will have no majority race ~ within
the decade. Within three decades, the whole country will almost have no majority race. We are
going to test whether what we always say about America is true ~ that we are basically a country
founded on an idea. It's not about land. It's not about race or ethnic origin. It's about the idea
that all of us are created equal. And that means, among other things, we have to deal with both
the perceptions and the reality.
And I don't want to get into this except to say that I hope that all of you are concerned by
the consequences of the wholesale abolition of affirmative action on enrollment in higher
education that we've seen in California and Texas. And I know a lot of employers of large
�companies have led the way in trying to preserve a sensible form of affirmative action. So I ask
you to consider that because this is not just the President and the government. All of us are the
stewards of whether we can become one America in the 21st century.
Finally, let me say on an issue that I know is a concern to some of you because I read
your ad in the paper - (laughter) — I think that we have to prove that we can grow the economy
while not only preserving, but actually enhancing, the environment. And I believe most of you
think we can do that. And I think the message you were trying to get across in the ad is, don't
wreck the economy without knowing what you're doing. I understand that.
But let me say, I was very moved by the speech recently given by the Chairman of
British Petroleum on the issue of climate change. I don't know how many of you read it, but
essentially what he said is, look, nobody knows exactly what the impact of climate change is, but
let's not deny anymore that the climate is changing and that it can't be good, and that no harm
will be done if we take sensible steps to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to do other
things which will help us to preserve the environment.
We've had more extreme weather conditions in the United States in the last five years
than we had in the previous 30. And we know from all the scientific studies what is happening
to the temperature of the globe. What I ask you to do is to work with me in good faith to give
our children a world worth living in.
A lot of you have made a good deal of money in your corporations by technologies
which improve the environment. And if we have the strongest economy in the world, we will
find a sensible way to grow that economy in a way that fulfills our responsibilities.
Today, with 4 percent of the world's population, we produce over 20 percent of the
greenhouse gases. We're up 13 percent since 1990 when President Bush and his administration
said we would try to hold constant through the year 2000.
I had an interesting conversation with Jiang Zemin in New York about a year ago, when
he said, I don't want you to have a containment policy toward China. I said, I'm not sure ~ I said,
I don't want to have a containment policy toward China. I said, my biggest worry about you is
that you'll get rich the same way we did. And if you do that, you might bum the air up because
you've got 1.2 billion people. And we need to find an environmentally responsible way for
China to grow.
So I ask yoe-to join with us in partnership. There is no secret plan. There is no scheme
here to try to put thousands of Americans out of business. I have devoted my passion and the
best ideas I could come up with to try to get this country in good shape economically and
socially. But I do believe it is folly for us to believe that we can go into the next century without
a strategy that says we're going to be responsible and we're going to do our part and lead the
world on the environmental issues ~ because we all know what the evidence is. We don't know
what the consequences are, and we don't want to go off and do something that we're not sure
makes sense. But we can do this. We can do it together. We can do it in a way that makes
�sense.
And I ask you not to ever ask us to back away from that, but instead join hands with us
and do what we've done for the last four and a half years. Let's find a way to preserve the
environment, to meet our international responsibilities, to meet our responsibilities to our
children, and grow the economy at the same time. I know we can do it. Look at the evidence of
the last four years. We can do anything if we put our minds to it.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
5:15 P.M. EDT
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(New York, New York)
For Immediate Release
June 26, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN ADDRESS TO THE UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL SESSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
The United Nations
New York, New York
6:30 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, ladies
and gentlemen: Five years ago in Rio, the nations of the world joined together around a simple
but revolutionary proposition, that today's progress must not come at tomorrow's expense.
In our era, the environment has moved to the top of the international agenda because
how well a nation honors it will have an impact, for good or ill, not only on the people of that
nation, but all across the globe. Preserving the resources we share is crucial not only for the
quality of our individual environments and health, but also to maintain stability and peace within
nations and among them. As the father of conservation in our nation, John Muir, said, "When we
try to pick anything out by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe."
In the years since Rio, there has been real progress in some areas. Nations have banned
the dumping of radioactive wastes in the ocean and reduced marine pollution from sources on
land. We're working to protect the precious coral reefs, to conserve threatened fish, to stop the
advance of deserts. At the Cairo Conference on Population and Development, we reaffirmed the
crucial importance of cooperative family planning efforts to long-term sustainable development.
Here in America, we have worked to clean up a record number of our toxic dumps and
we intend to clean 500 more over the next four years. We passed new laws to better protect our
water, created new national parks and monuments, and worked to harmonize our efforts for
environmental protection, economic growth and social improvement, aided by a distinguished
Council on Sustainable Development.
Yesterday, I announced the most far-reaching efforts to improve air quality in our nation
in 20 years, cutting smog levels dramatically, and, for the first time ever, setting standards to
�lower the levels of the fine particles in the atmosphere that form soot. In America, the incidence
of childhood asthma has been increasing rapidly. It is now the single biggest reason our children
are hospitalized. These measures will help to change that, to improve health of people of all
ages, and to prevent as many as 15,000 premature deaths a year.
Still, we here have much more to do, especially in reducing .America's contribution to
global climate change.
srienrp k rl^n
compelling: We humans are changing the global climate.
Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are at their highest levels in more than
200,000 years, and climbing sharply. If the trend is not changed, scientists expect the seas to rise
two feet or more over the next century. In .America, that means 9,000 square miles of
Florida, Louisiana, and other coastal areas will be flooded. In Asia, 17 percent of Bangladesh,
land on which 6 million people now live, will be lost. Island chains such as the Maldives will
disappear from the map, unless we reverse the predictions.
r
Climate changes will disrupt agriculture, cause severe droughts and floods and the spread
of infectious diseases, which will be a big enough problem for us under the best of circumstances
in the 21st century. There could be 50 million or more cases of malaria a year. We can expect
more deaths from heat stress. Just two years ago, here in the United States in the city of Chicago,
we saw the tragedy of more than 400 of our citizens dying during a severe heat wave.
No nation can escape this danger. None can evade its responsibility to confront it. And
we must all do our part — industrial nations that emit the largest quantities of greenhouse gases
today, and developing nations whose green house gas emissions are growing rapidly. I applaud
the European Union for its strong focus on this issue, and the World Bank for setting
environmental standards for projects it will finance in the developing world.
Here in the United States, we must do better. With 4 percent of the world's population,
we already produce more than 20 percent of its greenhouse gases. Frankly, our record since
Rio is not sufficient. We have been blessed with high rates of growth and millions of new jobs
over the last few years, but that has led to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in spite of
the adoption of new conservation practices. So we must do better, and we will.
The air quality action I took yesterday is a positive first step, but more must follow. In
order to reduce greenhouse gases and grow the economy, we must invest more in the
technologies of the future. I am directing my Cabinet to work to develop them. Government,
universities, business and labor must work together. All these efforts must be sustained over
years, indeed, over decades. As Vice President Gore said Monday, "Sustainable development
requires sustained commitment." 'With that commitment, we can succeed.
We must create new technologies and develop new strategies like emissions trading that
will both curtail pollution and support continued economic growth. We owe that in
the developed world to ourselves and, equally, to those in the developing nations.
�Many of the technologies that will help us to meet the new air quality standards can also
help us to address climate change. This is a challenge we must undertake immediately and one
in which I personally plan to play a critical role.
In the United States, in ordei^to do our nart. we have to first convince the American
people and the Congress that the climate change problem is real and imminent. 1 will convene a
White House Conference on Climnre Chnnae later this year to lay the scientific facts before our
people, to understand that we must act, and to lay the economic tacts there so that tfiey
"~"
understand the benefits and the costs. With the best ideas and strategies and new technologies
and increased productivity nnd pneroy efficiency, we can tum tne challenge to our advantage.
We will work with our people and we will bring to the Kyoto conference a strong
American commitment to realistic and binding limits that will sigmhcantly reduce our emissions
of greenhouse gases.
"
I want to mention three other initiatives briefly that we are taking to deal with climate
change and to advance sustainable development here and beyond our borders.
First, to help developing nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the United States will
provide $1 billion in assistance over the next five years to support energy efficiency, develop
alternative energy sources and improve resource management to promote growth that does not
have an adverse effect on the climate.
Second, we will do more to encourage private investment to meet environmental
standards. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation will now require that its projects adhere
to new and strengthened environmental guidelines, just as our Export-Import Bank already does
and as I hope our allies and fnends soon will. Common guidelines for responsible investment
clearly would lead to more sustainable growth in developing nations.
Third, we must increase our use of new technologies even as we move to develop more
new technologies. Already, we are working with our auto industry to produce cars by early in
the next century that are three times as fuel-efficient as today's vehicles. Now we will work with
businesses and communities to use the sun's energy to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels by
installing solar panels on 1 million more roofs around our nation by 2010. Capturing the sun's
warmth can help us to tum down the Earth's temperature.
Distinguished leaders, in all of our cultures we have been taught from time immemorial
that, as Scripture says, "One generation passes away and another comes, but the Earth abides
forever." We must strengthen our stewardship of the environment to make that true and to
ensure that when this generation passes, the young man who just spoke before me and all of
those of his generation will inherit a rich and abundant Earth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
6:42 P.M. EDT
�SUNTUM_M @ A l
10/01/97 04:35:00 PM
Record Type:
To:
Record
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: 1997-10/01 REMARKS BY PRES. AT WEATHER EVENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 1 , 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO WEATHER FORECASTERS
East Room
2:10 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President.
Welcome to the White House on a cool, overcast day, about 60 degrees.
(Laughter.) How am I doing? I'm auditioning. (Laughter.) You
know, I have to leave this job after three years, and I don't know
what I am going to do. And I am too young to retire, and I'm used to
delivering bad news. (Laughter and applause.)
Let me say, we are delighted to have you here in the
White House. I thank you for coming and for devoting this much of
your time to the briefings and to giving us a chance to meet w i t h you
on w h a t is a profoundly important issue -- and one, frankly, that
y o u , just in the w a y you comment on the events that you cover, may
have a real effect on the American people.
People look to you to figure out what they're going to
wear in the morning and whether something really bad is going to
happen. If so, they expect a timely warning and advice. So you not
only get watched more than anyone else on the television news
programs to find out about the weather, sometimes you are actually
saving lives and always performing a public service. And we thank
you for that.
�I'd also like to thank your outstanding partners at NOAA
and the National Weather Service. I'm very proud of them and what
they have done. In the past decade alone, they have doubled the
amount of warning time we have to prepare for tornadoes, quadrupled
the time for flash floods. And those are just t w o of the ways that
our people here, w i t h NOAA and the National Weather Service, and
their research and technology have improved our nation's safety and
planning.
You know, I spent most of my time over the last four and
a half years telling the American people that we had to prepare for
the 21st century, w i t h all of its new opportunities and all of its
new challenges if we want to keep the American Dream alive for
everyone w h o will work for it and maintain our leadership for peace
and freedom, and keep our country coming together with all of its
diversity and clash of interests, whether it's racial and ethnic or
religious or whatever. And we have really focused on trying to just
get the country to think about how we have to build these bridges to
the future, how the future will be as we want it to be.
Clearly, to me, this climate change issue is one of the
principal challenges that we face -- a challenge that, if we meet it,
will ensure the continued vitality of our small planet and the
continued success of the United States throughout another hundred
years; a challenge that should we fail to meet it, could imperil the
lives of our children and, if not our children, our grandchildren on
this planet -- how they live, how they relate to others and whether
they are able to continue to pursue their dreams in the way that our
generation has.
In trying to come to grips with this climate change
issue, and then talk to the American people about it, there are four
principles that have guided me and I'd like to go over them very
briefly.
First, I am convinced that the science is solid, sayinc
the that climate is warming at a more rapidS^te^that this is-due in
large measure to a dramatic increase in the volume of greenhouse
gases going into the atmosphere, and that nobody knows exactly what
the consequences are going to be or when they're going to be
manifest, but, on balance, it w o n ' t be all that long and they w o n ' t
be good. That is sort of a summary of what the prevailing scientific
opinion is.
I know there are those in a distinct minority w h o have a
different view, but I am persuaded, having carefully looked at all
this, that the vast majority opinion is, in fact, in all probability,
accurate. And that, therefore, we would be irresponsible not to try
to come to grips w i t h the results of these findings.
N o w , unlike a lot of weather forecasts, there is
something we can do about this weather forecast because w e ' v e got
�enough lead time -- at least we believe we do. So I think that's
very important.
Now, the second thing I want to say is that if we know
that the majority of our scientists have this view, and they say, we
don't know precisely what the bad effects of global climate change
are or exactly how fast the climate will change; that means we don't
know how severe the droughts and the floods of the future will be in
a particular region, but we know that it w o n ' t be long and the
consequences w o n ' t be good -- if we know that, then it seems to me it
is incumbent on the United States, when the nations of the world meet
in December in Kyoto, Japan, to discuss climate change, that we be
prepared to commit ourselves to realistic and binding limits on our
o w n emissions of greenhouse gases.
With 4 percent of the world's population, we enjoy over
20 percent of the world's wealth. That also explains w h y we produce
over 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. Those t w o things
are related. N o w , I believe that we have a responsibility to cut
back. First, because the world is looking to us for leadership, and,
secondly, because we w o n ' t have any influence in getting anybody else
to cut back if we d o n ' t .
To give you an example of how significant that is, we've
got all these other countries that are growing that have far larger
populations than we do. We estimate the that the developing
countries of Asia and Latin America will grow at roughly three times
the rate of the United States, Japan, Europe and Canada in the next
20 years. If that is true, we'll have to work very hard to maintain
our 2 0 percent share of wealth. But even if we do maintain our
standard of living and grow our economy, we w o n ' t be for long the
world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. So if we expect others
to show restraint, we must do the same and we must lead the way.
The third principle is that we must embrace solutions
that allow us to continue to grow the economy while we honor our
global responsibilities and our responsibilities to our o w n children.
We have worked too hard here, from the first day, to revitalize the
American economy to jeopardize our progress now. A n d , furthermore,
we cannot make changes that will leave whole chunks of that economy
out in the cold w i t h o u t having a response to them.
So the question is: Can we emphasize flexible,
market-based approaches? Can we embrace technology to make energy
production more efficient and put fewer greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere? Is there, in short, a way out of astronomical taxes or
heavy-handed governmental regulation that will permit us to gradually
bring d o w n our greenhouse gas production and still grow the economy
and enjoy what w e ' v e been enjoying here for the last four and a half
years? I believe the answer is, yes.
N o w , let me just give you one example. Typically, about
two-thirds of the energy produced by power plants is absolutely lost
in the form of wasted heat, billowing out in clouds of steam or
�pumped out into rivers. A company called Trigen has doubled the
efficiency of power plants in Philadelphia, Chicago and Tulsa, simply
by capturing the waste heat and turning it into steam to warm office
buildings a fuel factories, and in the process, by definition,
dramatically cutting the volume of greenhouse gases going into the
atmosphere to do the same amount of work in all those places.
That is just one small example. The Vice President and I
have been working w i t h the Big Three automakers, our energy labs, and
the UAW for years now on a new generation of vehicles that we hope
will get triple the gas mileage of a typical car. Perhaps the design
will even include a blend of gasoline and electricity in a way that
avoids the worst problems of electric cars -- that is, they don't go
very fast, and you have to charge them up too often -- but gets the
benefit of the energy conservation elements of the cars.
All these things are out there, and we found over time
-- how many times have you seen America rise to a challenge? We
didn't know how we were going to get to the Moon when President
Kennedy said we were going there, but we got there because we put our
resource behind it, and we started with what we knew, and then, in
the process of exploring the outer limits of what we knew, we found a
lot of things we didn't know, and we were able to put them to work
t o w a r d a common mission.
This is a scientific mission
even more important in its implications than our race to the Moon in
the 1960s. And yet we know a very great deal about how to do it
w i t h o u t crippling the American economy.
Finally, because of what I said earlier, because we
represent only 4 percent of the world's population, and because the
developing countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa, increasingly,
are going to grow at three times the rate of the developed countries,
I believe we have to ask all nations, both industrialized and
developing, to be a part of this process.
I'm happy that other countries are developing. It's
actually good for our economy when countries move from the ranks of
the very poor countries into middle income countries, because then
they can do more business w i t h us. So it helps us when other people
lift their children out of poverty and have a brighter future. It
also means that they, t o o , however, become bigger energy users, and
it imposes on us even heavier responsibilities, all of us, to change
our patterns of energy use so that all of us can grow our economies
w i t h o u t contributing to this greenhouse gas problem.
But because of the g r o w t h rates in the future, both the
population and economic g r o w t h and the associated energy use, we
could have a great deal of effort by Europe, by the United States, by
Canada, by Japan, and still be in very difficult straits on this
issue within 4 0 years, unless we get real solid support from the
developing countries. Should we make allowances for their growth?
Of course, we should; but in some w a y , in a fair and appropriate way
they should also participate in this agreement. Now, if that doesn't
happen, then their emissions, the emissions of the developing world
�will exceed the emissions of the developed world by about 2 0 3 5 .
Now, those are the things I want to do. I want to try
to get America to accept the fact that the majority scientific
opinion, the overwhelming majority scientific opinion is accurate. I
want us to make a commitment, therefore, to go to Kyoto with binding
targets. I want us to implement our commitment in a way that
continues to grow the economy in a different way, but still maintains
our robust entrepreneurial economy. And I want to find a fair way
for the developing countries to participate. Those are my four
objectives.
On Monday, we're going to try to take another step
toward putting these principles into effect. We invited noted
economists and industrial leaders, state and local governmental
leaders, and leaders from the environmental and scientific
communities here to the White House Conference for a White House
Conference on Climate Change. Our goals are simple. We want the
American people to understand the importance of the challenge and to
allow outside experts to help inform the policy process so we'll make
the best decisions.
N o w , I'd like to ask you to think about this in terms of
the work you do. When we had the terrible floods in the Dakotas and
Minnesota not very long ago, a young congressman from South Dakota
was in my office -- happened to be a member of the other party -- I
don't believe there's a partisan aspect to the weather, (laughter) -although some days it seems stormier than others around here.
(Laughter.) And this young man said -- I was talking about climate '
change, and he said, Mr. President, we've had 3 0 0 year floods in the
last nine years. He said, does that mean I get to go 5 0 0 years
w i t h o u t one? (Laughter.) And you'd be amazed how many people just
sort of from their anecdotal, personal experiences have this sense
that there is more instability in the climate than there used to be,
and understand that it has something to do w i t h the changes in the
relationship of where we live and whatever little patch of land we
occupy and this larger globe and the atmosphere which envelopes it.
So what I hope will happen at the Climate Change
Conference I also hope has happened a little here today. What I want
to do is to deal w i t h the central political problem here -- and I
don't mean political in terms of party politics; I mean political in
terms of h o w the body politic, how our society responds to this -- if
we have a problem that is a clear and present danger that we can see
and feel, we get right on it. How did we get to the Moon? Because
the Russians beat us into space, so we knew how to keep score, we
would beat them to the Moon. And if we didn't, since there was a
Cold War and nuclear weapons, goodness knows what the consequences
would be.
Now, it is much harder when you have no manifestation of
this problem unless you happen to live in a place which has
experienced an unusual number of or intensity of weather aberrations.
A n d , even so, they go away and then you can start thinking about
�something else. It is difficult when you are not quite sure how to
keep score, and you don't know who the enemy is.
All of you live w i t h the weather as a fact of life, and
a pre-condition for life on our planet in a way that nearly no one
else in the world does. The men and women of America who tune in and
listen to you talk about the weather and rely upon you are either
enlightened or entertained or disappointed by whatever it is you say
and however you say it. Most of them are sort of like Sergeant Joe
Friday - they just want the facts.
This is a case where people need the facts and the
context. Where if all you do is just try to get people to start
thinking about this -- you might not even know how you feel about it,
or exactly what you think should be done. That's okay. But I would
ask you to think about whether you should ask people to think about
this.
Because our country always gets it right. We always get
it right once we focus on it. But right now, while the scientists
see the train coming through the tunnel, most Americans haven't heard
the whistle blowing. They don't sense that it's out there as a big
issue. And I really believe, as President, one of my most important
jobs is to tell the America people what the big issues are that we
have to deal w i t h . If we understand what the issues are, if we start
w i t h a certain set of principles, we nearly always come to the right
place.
That's what we did -- we passed the first balanced
budget in a generation earlier this year, partly because we had
already gotten the deficit d o w n by over 85 percent, but partly
because we got people in both parties to agree that there's a goal -we're going to balance the budget -- and then the Republicans said,
here are the things we want in the balanced budget plan, and the
Democrats said, here are the things we w a n t , and we found out a way
to reconcile t h e m , and still do the most important thing, which was
to balance the budget, and we did it.
That's how we have to deal w i t h this climate change
issue. We have to say, there's a challenge out there, we have to
respond to it, here's the principles we want in our response. And
then we have to get after it. But we can't do it until we build the
awareness of the American people.
So I hope you will think about how your work has been
affected by what we believe is going on in the climate. A n d , again,
I d o n ' t ask for you to advocate or do anything outside whatever your
o w n convictions or parameters of permissible speech are, but I do
think it's very important, since you have more influence than anybody
does on h o w the American people think about this, that at least you
know what you believe and how you think we should proceed.
�Thank you for being here, and thank you for your
leadership. (Applause.)
The first time I ever really thought about this issue in
this way was when I was reading Al Gore's book -- (laughter) - which
preceded our partnership. Sometimes he thinks all the great things
he did preceded our partnership. (Laughter.) I think most of the
greatest things he's done occurred after our partnership started.
(Laughter.) I remember so well -- one of the first times -- we have
lunch once a week, and I remember one week we were having lunch very
early in this term -- this is over four years ago. And he said, just
in case you missed it in my book, here's the chart -- (laughter) -of how much we are increasing the emission of greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere, and here's 1 0 , 0 0 0 years and here's the last 5 0 , like
that.
So I can now pass Al Gore's climate test -- (laughter)
-- and I'm very proud of that. I think we should be proud that we
have a Vice President w h o not only cares about this issue, but knows
enough about it to have an opinion worthy of the respect of any
scientist in the w o r l d .
Ladies and gentlemen, the Vice President.
END
Message Sent To:
2:30 P.M. EDT
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 24, 1997
OPENING REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE VICE PRESIDENT
AT DISCUSSION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The East Room
1:57 P.M. EDT
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Please be seated ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the
President and the First Lady, it is my pleasure and honor to welcome all of you to the White
House. I'm going to present the President in just a moment.
Before doing so, on his behalf, I would like to acknowledge the distinguished guests
who are present. I will formally introduce our panel of Nobel laureates and university scientists
in just a moment. I want to acknowledge members of the President's Cabinet who are here Administrator of the EPA Carol Browner; Secretary of Commerce Bill Daley; Secretary of Labor
Alexis Herman; Secretary of Energy Federico Pena; Under Secretary of the Treasury Larry
Summers; Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency James Lee Witt; Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality Katie McGinty; the President's Science Advisor, Dr. Jack
Gibbons, and other distinguished guests who are present. We meet today to discuss the future of
our planet and the realities of global climate disruption.
I want to acknowledge one other person who is in the room somewhere and I haven't
had a chance to see him yet, but Charles David Keeling is here. And, Dr. Keeling, thank you
very much for joining us. And he was responsible, along with one other, in measuring carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere for the very first time back in the last 1950s. And my own
introduction to this issue came about as a direct result of the measurements which showed the
annual cycle of carbon dioxide and the steadily increasing peaks of concentrations of carbon
dioxide, and now, of course, we know other greenhouse gases, as well, that resulted from those
measurements.
Later, when I came to the Congress quite a few years after that, in holding hearings I
saw that those concentrations had increased dramatically and, of course, all around the world
scientists were studying it intensively. And now we will soon hear from these scientists about
what the world's scientific conclusion is about what this means for increased droughts and floods,
dramatic changes in the distribution of forests and croplands. And all of this gives rise to
�great concern that we are committing future generations to a planet that is altered in profound
ways that can cause great harm to future generations.
This administration has always worked on a simple principle when addressing
problems of a scientific and technical nature, and that principle is: Science must inform policy
decisions. Scientists are by nature a cautious group, but the world's scientific community is
telling us in many ways that they believe that we as a civilization are disrupting the balance of
the world's climate. In the words of the 2,000 scientists who participated in
theintergovemmental panel on climate change -- and I quote ~ "there is a discemable human
influence on global climate."
More than 2,600 scientists have signed a letter about global climatic disruption, which
we'll be hearing more about in just a few minutes. Today, we hear about the concerns of
scientists. They speak as eminent experts and as U.S. citizens who care about the future of this
planet. Each has a resume far too long to recount, but let me briefly introduce those who are
with us today.
Dr. Sherry Rowland won the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his pioneering research
in atmospheric chemistry, explaining the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer. He is also
a professor at the University of California at Irvine and an official with the National Academy of
Sciences.
Dr. Mario Molina shares the 1995 Nobel Prize with Sherry Rowland. He is the Lee and
Geraldine Martin Professor of Environmental Science at MIT.
Dr. Jane Lubchenco is an eminent ecologist, past President of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, very active with the AAAS, and also past President of the
Ecological Society of America. She is currently the Wayne and Gladys Valley Professor of
Marine Biology and a distinguished Professor of Zoology at Oregon State University.
Dr. Stephen Schneider is a climate scientist and professor at Stanford University,
recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship and winner of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science's Westinghouse Award for Public Understanding of Science and
Technology.
Dr. Bob Shope has devoted his professional life to the study of viruses carried by biting
insects. He is currently a professor in the Departments of Pathology and Microbiology and
Immunology at the University of Texas.
Dr. Henry Kendall won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1990. He is Chairman of the
Board of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the J.A. Stratton Professor of Physics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
�And John Holdren is an expert on energy and environmental science and delivered the
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences. He is currently the
Director of the Program on Science, Technology and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy
School of Government and Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard.
And now I would like to introduce the person who is leading our country and the world
toward a recognition of what must be done to deal with this issue. It is my honor, ladies and
gentlemen, to present the President of the United States, President Bill Clinton. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank you
for being here - members of the administration and concerned members of the public, the
scientists and other experts that are here.
I would also like to say a special word of thanks to the Vice President. In one of our
earliest meetings together -- we meet once a week and have lunch ~ he went over the whole
history of greenhouse gas emissions and climatic change. And 1 became convinced first that he
was convinced that something was wrong. (Laughter.) Then I became convinced something was
wrong. And it's been a great help to me, and I believe, to the people of the United States to have
him in the position that he's in not only with the convictions that he has, but with the knowledge
that he has. And I'm very grateful to him for what he has done to help me come to grips with this
issue.
'I
To me, we have to see this whole issue of climate change in terms of our deepest
|^o|ligations to future generations. I have spent most of my time in the last four and a half years
I trying to prepate the American people for a new century and a new millennium. It is also very
: important that we protect the Earth for that new millennium, to make sure that people will be
* able to take advantage of all the thin^jwe are trying to-do, the opportunities we are trying to
create, the problems we are trying to solve.
It is obvious that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities to future generations unless we
deal responsibly with the challenge of climate change. Whenever the security of our country has
been threatened, we have led the world to a better resolution. That is what is at stake here. And
the scientists have come here to explain why.
As the Vice President said, the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion
is that it is no longer a theory, but now a fact that global warming is for real. The world
scientists believe that if we don't cut our emissions of greenhouse gases, we will disrupt the
global climate. In fact, there is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the
global climate, and that if we stay on our current course, the average global temperatures may
rise 2 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit during the next century.
To put that in some context, the difference in average temperature between the last Ice
3
�Age, which was 10,000 to 12,000 years ago 10,000 to 12,000 years ago -- and today, is about 9
degrees Fahrenheit. So we could have two-thirds of that change in 100 years unless we do
something.
If we fail to act, scientists expect that our seas will rise one to three feet, and thousands
of square miles here in the United States, in Florida, Louisiana and other coastal areas will be
flooded. Infectious diseases will spread to new regions. Severe heat waves will claim lives.
Agriculture will suffer. Severe droughts and floods will be more common. These are the things
that are reasonably predictable.
In the face of this, the United States must confront a challenge that in some ways is the
most difficult of all democracy's challenges to face. That is, we have evidence, we-see the train
coming, but most ordinary Americans in their day^to^y lives can't hear the whistle blowing.
They have no ~ unless they have lived in a place where they have experienced severe and
unusual and completely atypical weather disruptions in the last five years or so, the degree of the
challenge is inconsistent with the actual perceived experience of most ordinary Americans. And
this is true, indeed, throughout the world. And that presents us our challenge.
A democracy is premised on the proposition that if the American people, or any people
in any democracy, know what the facts are and believe them, way more than half the time they
will do the right thing. And so what we are doing today is beginning a process in which we ask
the American people to listen to the evidence, to measure it against their own experience, but not
to discount the weight of scientific authority if their own experience does not yet confirm what
the overwhelming percentage of scientists believe to be fact today. This is a great exercise and a
great test for our democracy.
I do want to say that I am convinced that when the nations of world meet in Kyoto,
Japan, ii^JjggiitosMtt^
realistic and
binding limits on our emissions of greenhouse gaae&s . between now and then, we have to work
wiffi tfie'American-peo^to-^
We have to emphasize flexible
market-based approaches. We have to embrace research and development efforts in technology
that wiH help us lo.improve the-eoenemy-"itnpmyMfty^lf6'nm^twliiIe permitting our
economy to grow. We have to ask all nations, both industrial and developing, to participate in
this pjxM^s^cu,.^^^^n^»°«»'^~~;
a B g a p l S i h e 21 st century
mofmeworld. I believe the
i it to our children.
ifcwtiiBriiesartew'
,
fe:- J^Tv.«*».-.i-r-<i.-.-o
months foEOTt^h^
4
And for all of you for your commitment to that, I thank you.
r
' to rhetoric.
�And now I'd like to ask Dr. Rowland to be the first of our distinguished scientists to lead
off. (Applause.)
* * * * *
THE PRESIDENT: I wish every American could hear what we've heard today. But
thanks to our friends in the media, a good number of them will hear at least a portion of what we
have heard today. And this is the beginning of a consistent long-term effort that we all have to
make to involve the people of this country in this decision. And I thank you all for the points
you've made because, in different ways each of them will resonate with citizens of this country in
a way that I believe will give us the support we need to take the action that has to be taken.
In the weeks and months ahead, the Vice President, the Cabinet, other members of the
administration and I will be out in the country discussing this. We'll be working with the
American people; we'll be talking about solutions as well as problems. The truth is, it's like
anything else — the quicker you get — another answer Dr. Holdren might have given is that the
quicker you get after this the less extreme the remedy you have to embrace to have a measurable
effect to avoid an undesirable outcome. And the longer you wait, the more disruptive the
ultimate resolution will be. So that's another thing that I'd like to emphasize.
Before we close I hope you will permit me to make a brief statement. Just before I came
in here to this meeting I learned that today, and not very long ago, retired Supreme Court Justice
William Brennan passed away. He was a remarkable human being, one of the finest and most
influential jurists in our nation's history. He served on the Supreme Court for 34 years. He was
perhaps during that period the staunchest, most effective defender of individual freedom against
government intrusion.
His devotion to the Bill of Rights inspired millions of Americans and countless young
law students, including myself. And one of the great honors I have had as President was to be
able to award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in my first year in office.
He once said, the role of the Constitution is the protection of the dignity of every human
being and the recognition that every individual has fundamental rights which government cannot
deny. He spent a lifetime upholding those rights, and he authored some of the most enduring
constitutional decisions of this century, including Baker v. Carr on one person, one vote; The
New York Times v. Sullivan, which brought the free speech doctrine into the latter half of the
20th century. The force of his ideas, the strength of his leadership and his character have
safeguarded freedom and widened the circle of quality for every single one of us.
We will miss him greatly. And I know you join me in sending our best wishes and our
prayers to his family and fnends, and our gratitude for his life.
�Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
3:05 P.M. EDT
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Lowell Weiss
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lowell Weiss
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1997-2001
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36408">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431951">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0470-F
Description
An account of the resource
This collection consists of the speechwriting files of Lowell Weiss. Lowell Weiss worked as a Special Assistant to the President, Presidential Speechwriter from June 1997 - August 2000. Weiss traveled and wrote speeches for President Clinton on domestic issues. His speeches cover a broad array of topics. Major issues he wrote on concern the environment, education, the economy, and race relations. He wrote weekly radio addresses; commencement speeches; and remarks for bill signings, events, and conferences. The records consist of speeches, drafts, memoranda, correspondence, schedules, event and travel arrangements, notes, articles, and printed email.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
464 folders in 36 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Climate Change 10/22/97 - Previous POTUS Speeches
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Lowell Weiss
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0470-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 8
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36408">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/20760877">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
20760877
42-t-7431951-20060470-F-008-002-2015