New York Times
May 3, 2001

Rumsfeld's Office Reverses China Ban

By STEVEN LEE MYERS

WASHINGTON, May 2 — The office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered the suspension of military exchanges and contacts with the Chinese armed forces and then abruptly reversed the order today after the White House objected, Pentagon officials said.

The reversal, which the Pentagon announced in an unusual retraction this evening, reflected a degree of confusion in an administration that had tried to project a disciplined management style.

It also underscored divisions among President Bush's advisers over how tough to be with China after the confrontation over an American surveillance aircraft that remains at a Chinese military base on Hainan Island.

A memorandum dated April 30 and signed by Chris Williams, a senior adviser to Mr. Rumsfeld for policy matters, directed the United States armed forces to suspend contacts between their civilian and military officials and their Chinese counterparts "until further notice," according to an official who read it.

Several hours after the order became public, in a CNN broadcast, the Pentagon issued a statement saying that the memorandum had "misinterpreted the position" of Mr. Rumsfeld, even though Pentagon officials had earlier confirmed the memo's main points.

A spokesman for Mr. Bush, Ari Fleisher, said in an interview later that his office had objected to the disclosure because it did not reflect what the White House understood to be the thrust of Mr. Rumsfeld's guidance.

Other Pentagon officials and lawmakers contradicted the account that Mr. Rumsfeld had not approved the cancellation of military-to-military contacts.

John W. Warner, the Republican of Virginia who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he had spoken with Mr. Rumsfeld about suspending contacts with the Chinese military and heartily endorsed the tougher line that it suggested. . . .

Senior military commanders, including Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the commander of American forces in the Pacific, strongly support the contacts and exchanges as valuable tools to reduce tensions, build
confidence and learn about the Chinese strategies and programs.

The American ambassador to China, Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, was appointed in part because of contacts developed with Chinese military and civilian leaders while he was commander of American forces in the Pacific.

In recent years, the contacts have been criticized by conservative lawmakers as ineffective. Last year, Congress mandated that the Pentagon evaluate the program's goals and effectiveness and report back by March 31, a deadline that the Pentagon missed.

Mr. Finkelstein said it was important to resume the contacts. "If you have potentially serious security disagreements," he said, "then that's all the more reason to find a proper venue for continuing contacts."
. . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/03/world/03MILI.html

***********************

U.S. Military Contacts With China Limited Pentagon Suspension Is
Announced, Then Recanted

By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 3, 2001;
Page A01

The Pentagon downgraded U.S. military contacts with China yesterday, a step that appears to signal a further hardening of the Bush administrationahe Pentagon at first said it was suspending all contacts between the two militaries, which have included reciprocal visits by warships to U.S. and Chinese ports, nearly annual trips by senior officers and lower-level exchanges in such fields as military medicine.

Then, after a hectic round of telephone calls among top officials, the Defense Department retracted that statement. Instead of a complete suspension, it said, all contacts between the U.S. and Chinese militaries would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Officials said the initial memorandum, written by Christopher Williams, an aide to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, had misrepresented the secretary's intentions. Adm. Craig Quigley, the Pentagon spokesman, called it an "a honest misinterpretation by a member of" Rumsfeld's staff.

But others in government said some officials outside the Pentagon had been informed about the planned suspension earlier in the week. One Republican staff aide on Capitol Hill said that Williams, a former deputy staff director of the Senate intelligence committee, was "very careful, very cautious, and particularly well-known for coordinating with others."

The about-face was similar to another administration reversal in early April, when the Agriculture Department announced it was eliminating salmonella testing of ground beef served to children in federal school lunch programs. The next day, Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman said the tests would continue, blaming a "low-level" department official for making the decision without her approval.

Last week, President Bush also appeared to step away from a 23-year-old U.S. policy when he said in a television interview that the United States would do "whatever it took" to defend Taiwan if it were attacked by mainland China. White House officials did not retract that statement but strove to clarify that there had been no alteration in the long-standing policy of leaving it unclear whether the United States would defend Taiwan. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34620-2001May2.html

***********************
Bush Advisers Try To Limit Damage No Change in Policy Toward Taiwan

By Charles Babington and Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 27, 2001; Page A19

President Bush's advisers sought yesterday to defuse the furor caused by his statements about U.S. defense of Taiwan, saying the comments were not intended to change policy or antagonize China.

Administration officials said the president meant what he said when he declared in a television interview Wednesday that the United States would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself" against a Chinese attack. But in sending a strong signal to China, he did not anticipate the full consequences of departing from the nuanced language governing relations with China, they said.

"He wasn't speaking normal Washington, D.C., diplomatese," one administration official said. "He did not intend to make news; he did not mean to cause a ruckus."

"I don't think there was an intention to make a major break from things he said in the past," a senior State Department official said. "The key is to say that we would help Taiwan defend itself. . . . The president is very serious about helping Taiwan defend itself in event of an attack" from the People's Republic of China, which considers Taiwan a renegade province. . . .

The dust-up appeared likely to rekindle questions over whether the former Texas governor has command of the intricate, sensitive international issues that confront presidents.

Publicly yesterday, administration officials stuck to their line: Bush meant just what he said in the Wednesday interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," even though he didn't intend the furor that it ignited, and did not mean to change U.S. policy. The White House, indeed, is trying to limit the damage by touting Bush's more conciliatory policies toward China. . . .

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, pressed for further explanations of Bush's comments, told reporters: "The president said what he wanted to say. What the president said yesterday and the day before was what he said a year ago and what he'll say tomorrow. He took the position he took because he believes in it. . . . He's a straight-spoken man, a plainspoken man."

Lampton said Bush's comments to ABC were ill-timed because relations with Beijing already are strained over several matters. They include China's capture of a U.S. surveillance plane, Bush's recent decision to sell new weapons to Taiwan and the detention of U.S. citizens studying in China. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8659-2001Apr26.html
*******************

Bush Officials Defend Environmental Positions In Earth Day Debates
Whitman, Norton Play Down Drilling Options

By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, April 23, 2001; Page
A02

President Bush's beleaguered environment officials spent Earth Day yesterday putting their greenest feet forward, with Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman saying an administration task force would not insist on drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton playing down a controversial proposal to build new oil rigs off Florida. . . .

Speaking on "Face the Nation," Whitman gave the strongest assurance yet that the administration would not push hard for permission to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- a political retreat that many White House watchers had predicted given the apparent lack of supportive votes in Congress and threats of a Democratic filibuster.

Whitman, who sits on Vice President Cheney's energy task force, which is due to present recommendations next month, would not confirm a report in the current issue of Time magazine that the administration has dropped its plan to drill in the refuge. But she said the task force will not
explicitly endorse it.

"As far as our report goes, we didn't specifically say, 'You must drill in ANWR,' " Whitman said. "We didn't recommend that to the president." . . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50109-2001Apr22.html

***************************

Bush Still Wants Drilling in Alaska

By John Heilprin Associated Press Writer Monday, April 23, 2001; 6:35
p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON –– President Bush still plans to ask lawmakers to open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, his spokesman said Monday.

"The president's position on opening up a small portion of ANWR for oil development is unchanged," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.

Fleischer made the comment after acknowledging "there was some confusion" Sunday when administration officials were asked on TV network shows about a Time magazine report quoting Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove.

The magazine quoted an unnamed source saying Rove told a media consultant for oil companies in a private meeting last Tuesday that Bush wasn't going to push Congress for new drilling in Alaska. . . .

Fleischer said Monday that the energy proposal from Cheney's task force "will include a provision calling for opening of a small portion of ANWR for energy development."

Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said Rove did not say in the meeting last week that Bush was putting less priority on opening the Alaska refuge to drilling.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton said on two other shows Sunday, CNN's "Late Edition" and ABC's "This Week," that drilling the Arctic refuge remains an administration priority. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010423/aponline183501_000.htm
*********************
Boston Globe 4/24/2001

Bush aide corrects EPA chief
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday that the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Christie Whitman, was speaking in ''confusion'' Sunday when she announced that a White House energy task force would not recommend oil drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.

Fleischer then directly contradicted Whitman, saying the task force will recommend that oil drilling be allowed in the refuge.

The strongly worded comments by Fleischer during a White House briefing renewed questions about whether Whitman is at odds with President Bush over environmental policy. Earlier this year, Whitman said Bush would stand by his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, only to learn that Bush was abandoning the promise.

On Sunday, appearing on the CBS ''Face the Nation'' program, Whitman said that Vice President Dick Cheney's task force on energy would not recommend to Bush that drilling be allowed in the Arctic refuge. Although Bush campaigned heavily on such a proposal, it has little prospect of passage anytime soon in Congress.

''Somebody may have made a decision somewhere, but as far as our report goes, we didn't specifically say you must drill in ANWR,'' Whitman said. ''We didn't recommend that to the president.''

Within hours of Whitman's statement, a White House official told reporters that no such final decision had been made. Yesterday, Fleischer repeated that position in even stronger terms and also seemed
to be advising Whitman to be more careful in her statements.

''There was confusion created as a result of the question, as a result of what had been brought to her attention, and I think she readily clarified it,'' Fleischer said.

Whitman ''was presented with one reporter's version of another's works,'' he said. ''And as you know, any time that happens, it's always best to accurately assess the information, which is exactly what EPA
did, and released that information later in the afternoon.''

The bottom line, Fleischer said, is that ''the president's position on opening up a small portion of ANWR for oil development is unchanged.''

''The energy proposal that will be shortly submitted from the vice president's task force will include a provision calling for opening a small portion of ANWR for development,'' he said.

An EPA spokeswoman said yesterday that Whitman would not immediately comment.

http://www.globe.com/dailyglobe2/114/nation/Bush_aide_corrects_EPA_chiefP.shtml

*****************************

Officials Defend Bush on Earth Day

By Brigitte Greenberg Associated Press Writer Sunday, April 22, 2001;
3:39 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON –– On Earth Day, Bush Cabinet members defended the president's environmental policies as a measured approach that balances the need for clean air and water with demands for energy and other natural resources.

"We have made a number of decisions that are very pro-environment, but unfortunately they get overlooked when there's something that people can challenge," Christie Whitman, the Environmental Protection Administration chief, said Sunday. . . .

Also Sunday, Norton played down a report in Time magazine that Bush senior adviser Karl Rove said the administration would not push for drilling in the arctic refuge.

Norton said on CNN's "Late Edition" that Rove told her earlier Sunday that "he still believes that it is something that we should push forward with."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010422/aponline153914_000.htm

******************************

Bush Energy Plan Will Emphasize Production Cheney: Conservation Is Part
of Effort

By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 1, 2001; Page
A01

TORONTO, April 30 -- Vice President Cheney said today that the Bush administration's energy policy will emphasize increased generation over conservation and rely on an ambitious expansion of the country's oil, coal and natural gas industries in addition to a broader reliance on nuclear power. . . .

Cheney said the plan will call for increased exploration for new sources of oil, coal and natural gas, and construction of refineries, plants and pipelines. He reiterated the administration's support for drilling in
Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which he said could be tapped for oil without disrupting its environment.

Cheney, who was chairman of the oil services firm Halliburton Co. before taking office, called coal "the most plentiful source of affordable energy in the country" and said it will remain the nation's primary
source of electricity for years. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24644-2001Apr30.html
**********************

New York Times
April 5, 2001

U.S. Proposes End to Testing for Salmonella in School Beef

By MARIAN BURROS

The Bush administration has proposed dropping testing for salmonella in ground beef for the federal school-lunch program and letting schools serve beef that has been irradiated, a procedure that kills salmonella and all other harmful bacteria but is mistrusted by many consumers.

The salmonella tests, ordered last June by the Clinton administration, were met with fierce opposition by the meat industry, which complained that the tests were burdensome and not scientific. The industry has since lobbied to scrap them. . . .

The proposal means that "neither federal inspectors nor companies involved will test for a potentially deadly pathogen in meat going to millions of school children nationwide," said Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the Food Policy Institute of the Consumer Federation of America and a former Agriculture Department official in the Carter administration.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who sits on the agriculture subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, was also critical of the change and threatened Congressional action.

"The school lunch program is a very sacred budget in our program," Mr. Durbin said, "and a lot of senators and congressman don't feel it's a political issue.

"First, it was arsenic in drinking water. Now it's salmonella in school lunches. Where will it end?" . . . .

"They caught five million pounds of meat that had salmonella in it last year that they wouldn't have caught, and they won't catch it next year," she said.

Dr. Clayton said he had no idea how many companies would choose to irradiate their ground beef. . . .

The meat processors have lobbied hard to get rid of the salmonella testing. Sara Lilygren, a spokeswoman for the American Meat Institute, said: "The draft proposal appears to be an improvement for consumers because it allows irradiated ground beef to be purchased, uses generic
e- coli testing to determine whether the product has been produced in a clean and controlled environment and abandons the old zero tolerance for salmonella, which had no basis for reducing food-borne illness risk since it was in a product required to be cooked to 160 degrees but caused millions of pounds of good meat to be rejected and jacked up the cost of ground beef."

The salmonella tests added to the cost of ground beef. Irradiation is expected to do the same, but it is not known by how much.

Until the Clinton administration adopted the science-based specifications last year, the only safety requirement for school-lunch ground beef was that it be produced in an Agriculture Department-certified processing plant.

Those specifications were enacted after a federal judge rebuffed the department's efforts last summer to close a Texas meat-processing plant based on random salmonella tests the department had conducted.

The plant supplied as much as 45 percent of the ground beef in the school-lunch program after it failed salmonella tests three times. But the judge said the department lacked the authority to use such tests,
and ordered that the plant remain open. It closed later last year, however, after the department decided to appeal the judge's ruling.

Since the rules became effective, salmonella contamination has dropped by as much as 50 percent, studies show. . . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/education/05MEAT.html

**********************
Tampa Bay Tribune
APRIL 05

Plan To Ease Meat Testing Abandoned

By PHILIP BRASHER AP Farm Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration backed away from a proposal to ease salmonella testing requirements on meat for school lunches, saying it was overruling lower level Agriculture Department officials.

The administration reversed course Thursday after the proposal made front-page news, provoking criticism from consumer groups already angered by President Bush's withdrawal of a standard for the amount of arsenic allowable in drinking water — a standard issued by President Clinton.

``It makes for a very tough morning when you open most newspapers in this country and find a front-page story that your administration is relaxing standards on the safety of school lunch programs,'' said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., who favors testing. ``That's a hard one to sell.''

The proposed changes were on the Agriculture Department's Web site on Wednesday, but were gone by Thursday morning.

Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said the changes ``were released prior to receiving an appropriate review.'' . . . .

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said news reports of the proposed changes prompted Veneman to accelerate her decision-making process and her announcement. As of Wednesday, she had not made up her mind, he said.

Fleischer denied that political considerations drove the decision. . . .

Critics have increasingly been charging that in his early decisions, Bush has favored corporate interests.

Last month, after heavy lobbying from the coal industry, Bush abandoned a campaign pledge to limit power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide.

The American Meat Institute, an industry group, had attacked the salmonella testing rules as having ``no basis in public health.'' The industry pressed Veneman to overturn them, as did the American School Food Service Association.

About 5 percent of the beef offered to USDA over the past year tested positive for salmonella and was rejected. . . .

``This decision means that neither federal inspectors nor the companies involved will test for a potentially deadly pathogen in meat going to millions of schoolchildren nationwide,'' said Carol Tucker Foreman, who oversaw USDA's food-safety programs during the Carter administration and now represents the Consumer Federation of America.

Thursday, she praised the administration.

``I have to thank the Bush administration for seeing the folly of their ways and reversing this decision,'' she said.

http://wire.ap.org/APnews/entry.html?PACKAGEID=foodsafety&SITE=FLTAM

**********************
Wednesday March 14 1:58 PM ET

Bush Backs Off Campaign Pledge on Pollution

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush (news - web sites) abandoned a campaign pledge on Tuesday, telling Congress he would not seek to impose mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide at electrical power plants.

The move angered environmentalists and was at odds with the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites), the 1997 U.N. climate pact accord aimed at reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The accord was signed by the United States but has not been ratified by the Senate
and Bush opposes it.

Bush had declared in a presidential campaign speech on energy that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and thus susceptible to emissions controls, but aides said on Tuesday it had been a mistake to do so since it is not listed as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. . . .

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said Bush was on record as being concerned about the impact of global warming ``but he does believe we have to research more fully what the causes are so we can know what the solutions are.'' . . . .
***********************

Washington Post
Thursday, March 15, 2001
Hill Pressure Fueled Bush's Emissions Shift

By Amy Goldstein and Eric Pianin Washington Post Staff Writers

At midmorning on Tuesday, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman arrived at the White House to tell President Bush about her recent meeting in Italy with European environmental ministers. While Whitman was in the Oval Office, however, the president broke an
awkward piece of news.

Even though Whitman had spent the past month touting a proposal that would for the first time limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants—a position Bush had embraced six months ago during his campaign—the president had decided to send a letter to four GOP senators, disclosing that he had changed his mind.

The seven-paragraph letter—dispatched that afternoon, barely two weeks after objections began to surface on Capitol Hill—came in response to a concerted pressure campaign from senior congressional Republicans and lobbyists from the coal and oil industries.

In a single meeting March 5, Bush decided he simply had been wrong to name carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Over the next days, the White House staff and agency representatives abandoned the notion of moving to restrict emissions of the substance.

The hasty retreat on a significant campaign pledge—hailed by environmentalists as a breakthrough when Bush made it—reflects the new administration's eagerness to avoid antagonizing a narrowly divided Congress, especially the Senate with its 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans.

Indeed, the White House began to rethink its views on emissions in late February, as the president was preparing to outline his $1.6 trillion, 10-year tax cut proposal and spending priorities in a nationally
televised address to Congress. At a time when Bush was trying to create momentum for the tax cut—his paramount legislative objective—Nicholas E. Calio, the White House legislative liaison, began to warn that the emissions proposal was causing trouble and might need to be rethought, administration sources said.

White House officials, meanwhile, sought to ward off any suggestion that Bush's reversal had undercut his EPA administrator, emphasizing that Whitman had been a faithful advocate of the position the president adopted as part of his campaign's energy policy.

That policy stated that, while promoting electricity and renewable energy, Bush would work to make the air cleaner. For the first time, he said in a speech in September, he would require all power plants to meet standards to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, as well as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury.

Yesterday, Dan Bartlett, a campaign official who now is a senior White House communications adviser, said that position had been developed by "basically internal staff" who patterned the approach after the policy Bush adopted while governor of Texas. In Texas, however, carbon dioxide was not included.

Lynn Scarlett, president of the libertarian Reason Foundation in Los Angeles and an environmental adviser to the Bush campaign, recalled she had been "personally surprised" when Bush endorsed tough carbon emissions standards. She said his position seemed to conflict with his opposition to the terms of an international global warming agreement reached in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. The United States has not ratified the accord.

But in general, the campaign position attracted little notice. "It did not raise a lot of objections at the time," Bartlett recalled.

Once Bush took office, however, Whitman began to speak out on the issue, alarming conservative GOP senators such as Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Larry E. Craig (Idaho), Jesse Helms (N.C.) and Pat Roberts (Kan.), who dispute the seriousness of global warming.

On the eve of Bush's maiden speech to Congress Feb. 27, Whitman declared on CNN's "Crossfire" program that the president "is very sensitive to the issue of global warming" and would fulfill his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions as well as other greenhouse gases that
trap heat in the atmosphere and are widely believed to contribute to the Earth's rising temperature.

Calio's office began to get loud complaints from Capitol Hill. . . .

Over the weekend, a smaller group of White House staffers drafted the letter to the four GOP senators, who had asked the administration to clarify its views on global climate change. Some at last week's meetings had broached the idea of leaving open the possibility of regulating carbon emissions in the future. "That was not a consideration" while the letter was being drafted, Bartlett said.

By Monday evening, Bush received a copy. His staff planned to discuss it with him Tuesday afternoon. But by the time Whitman arrived at 10 a.m., the president already had made up his mind.

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6184-2001Mar14.html

**********************
Washington Post
March 27, 2001

In a private memo to President Bush, EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman urged him to recognize global warming as a serious international issue -- just days before the president reneged on his campaign pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions at the nation's power plants. The full text of the memo follows

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
March 6, 2001
THE ADMINISTRATOR

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT

FROM: CHRISTIE WHITMAN

SUBJECT: G-8 MEETING, TRIESTE

Having just returned from Italy and the G-8 meeting I thought I would pass on a few observations of the International Community and global climate change.

First: This was a precursor to two meetings to which you and other heads of state will be invited: Bonn in July and Johannesburg in 2002. It is safe to assume that there will be head of state participation in at
least one if not both meetings.

Second: The World Community (EU; Umbrella group made up of US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Norway, Iceland, Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan (as an observer); and the G-77 or developing countries) are all convinced of the seriousness of this issues and the need to act now.

Third: The Kyoto Protocol is the only game in town in their eyes. There is a real fear in the international community that if the US is not willing to discuss the issue within the framework of Kyoto the whole thing will fall apart. They feel that they can move ahead toward their goals on their own, but would need the U.S. to really get things done.

Fourth: For the first time the world's religious communities have started to engage in the issue. Their solutions vary widely, but the fervor of the focus was clear. Of course this has been an issue for the
NGOs for awhile. As you can see from the attached highlighted clips, I had varied success in buying us time to fully engage in these discussions. From a political perspective I believe that we are in a position to build some good will while not endorsing the specifics of Kyoto. Expectations are low for
this Administration.

I would strongly recommend that you continue to recognize that global warming is a real, and serious issues.

While not specifically endorsing the targets called for in Kyoto, you could indicate that you are exploring how to reduce U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions internally and will continue to do so no matter what else transpires.

Mr. President, this is a credibility issue (global warming) for the U.S. in the international Community. It is also an issue that is resonating here, at home. We need to appear engaged and shift the discussion from the focus on the "K" word to action, but we have to build some bonifides first.

We did win some issues at this meeting i.e., recognizing cost, promoting children's health, and fending off some last minute end runs by the Germans and Japanese. I'm available to discuss this further if you want.

*****************************
Washington Post
March 27, 2001
EPA Chief Lobbied on Warming Before Bush's Emissions Switch Memo
Details Whitman's Plea for Presidential Commitment

By Eric Pianin Washington Post Staff Writer

A week before President Bush broke his campaign pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman warned him that he must demonstrate his commitment to cutting greenhouse gases or risk undermining the United States' standing among
allies around the world. . . .

Although Whitman's efforts to promote Bush's campaign promise on carbon dioxide have been known, the memo reveals the extent to which the former New Jersey governor lobbied the president before he made his decision. Disclosure of the memo served to undercut Whitman further on an issue on which she had staked out a high-profile position in the United States and abroad in the weeks leading up to the president's action, according to some Democratic members of Congress and officials with environmental groups. . . .

The White House, congressional Republicans and an aide to Whitman disputed the claims. They said despite her differences with the president over carbon dioxide emissions, Whitman remains an influential and effective member of the administration. . . . .

Whitman refused to comment yesterday. Her spokesman said the memo was a confidential correspondence between Whitman and the president, and that she would not be willing to discuss it. A senior White House aide said last night that Bush recently went out of his way to praise Whitman at an energy policy meeting for her handling of the carbon dioxide issue "in terms of her offering advice and her loyalty."

Over the weekend, Whitman denied in a broadcast interview that the president had "pulled the rug out" from under her. "No, we were part of that decision," she said on CNN's "Late Edition." "We were working with the White House for the week leading up to it."

Whitman said the president had made it clear he continues to recognize global climate change "as something that's real, and we need to work with our allies around the world on the issue."

Bush's decision to reverse his campaign promise followed intense lobbying by coal and oil companies and congressional conservatives who opposed the proposal. . . .

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62038-2001Mar26.html

******************************************************************
******************************************************************

Who's running this show anyway? And this is the gang who talk about
governing by principles and not polls. Right out of the gate everybody
seems to be going off in their own directions while Bush tours the
country, still thinking that he's campaigning. Already this reminds me
of the last few Reagan years when Reagan was out to lunch and the
cabinet was full of politics and power plays. We're too big a country
to be governed in such a slipshod manner. These folks are going to get
us in trouble. I just hope whatever happens isn't a total
disaster -- like a war.

Our media, especially our television media, have been way too soft on
the Texas gang. They're probably afraid they won't get invited to a
barbecue.

John V.

Return to "Articles from Anonymous"