Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120359368
label
[K-August 1993] [Loose]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120359368
contentType
document
title
[K-August 1993] [Loose]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120359368
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg1-038-027-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
2bcd354459356da5
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-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 Library Collection
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
Correspondence
OA/ID Number:
2254
FolderID:
Folder Title:
[K - August 1993] [Loose]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
5
2
2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 9, 1993
Mr. Donald D. Kummerfeld
President
Magazine Publishers of America
575 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Dear Mr. Kummerfeld:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
the Executive Order for Recycled Goods. It was good to hear from
you, and I appreciate the Magazine Publishers of America's
statement on federal procurement standards which you enclosed.
I share President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's
commitment to preserving our environment in a way that leads to
strong and sustainable economic growth. Recycling is one of our
top priorities.
As you know, through the hard work and initiative of many
community and industry leaders, recycling has become almost
routine to many people. To really make recycling a success,
further outreach is needed to encourage both the supply and
demand for recycled products. To that end, the President
announced in his Earth Day speech his intention to sign an
Executive Order on recycled goods. This Executive Order will
strengthen the previous Federal Agency Recycling Order of October
1991 by requiring a revision of procurement guidelines for
recycled products, establishing new content standards for
recycled printing and writing paper, and encouraging federal
agencies to set procurement goals for recycled products. This is
an important first step.
The Executive Order will also require that Federal Agencies
begin to procure printing and writing paper containing
postconsumer material. The purpose of this policy, among other
things, is to provide an incentive for pulp and paper mills to
use recovered materials, not just virgin materials, to make
paper. This will provide markets for paper recovered from the
municipal solid waste stream and ultimately result in
substantially lower prices for recycled papers containing
recovered materials.
I appreciate learning your thoughts about this very
important matter.
Rahlen a. Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Magazine Publishers of America
575 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022
212 752 0055
MA
DONALD D. KUMMERFELD
President
July 28, 1993
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President & Director
Office of Environmental Policy
Room 360
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty:
The Magazine Publishers of America (MPA) understands that the
President is considering issuance of an Executive Order requiring
federal agencies to purchase recycled content papers and "total
chlorine free" (TCF) papers. We also understand that, in the
Order, the threshold standard for recycled content for most
printing and writing paper grades (including the coated paper used
by most magazines) would be set at 50% total recovered fiber, with
a minimum of 15% post-consumer content, to be raised to 20% in
three to four years.
I. We urge that this Executive Order be reconsidered, and that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) be allowed to continue its
process for developing reasonable federal procurement standards.
As you know, the Environmental Protection Agency is carefully
addressing many of the issues involved in this area. Through its
own activities and through the work of the Recycling Advisory
Committee (RAC), it has consulted extensively with paper producers,
paper users, and environmental groups to develop federal
procurement standards. We urge that EPA's deliberations be
permitted to continue without being by-passed by issuance of this
Executive Order.
In the EPA consultations, there has been a clear recognition that
coated and uncoated papers should not have the same requirements
since coated papers have unique challenges in using recycled fiber.
These challenges include the difficulty of coating paper that
contains contaminants present in recycled fiber and the need for
strong fiber, since part of the paper is composed of weak coating.
The RAC, in 1992, recommended lower recycled content levels for
coated papers; and, in March 1993, both the Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF) and MPA recommended to EPA that coated papers have only
a post-consumer standard, not a total recycled content standard.
II. While we support the federal goal of increasing the use of
recycled paper, we believe that setting the threshold as high as
50% total recovered fiber with 15% post-consumer fiber may actually
- 2 -
impede the ultimate goal of increasing the use of recycled fiber.
Therefore, we oppose the contemplated 50%/15% standard.
First, the 50% total recovered fiber standard is clearly too high.
A recent Franklin and Associates study stated that a full 98% of
all pre-consumer waste paper is currently being recycled. Since a
federal procurement standard is likely to become a de facto
industry standard, a 50% total recovered fiber standard will likely
cause a shortage of pre-consumer waste paper to be used in recycled
paper both for government and for private industry. This will
result in the price of recycled paper being driven up, without any
guarantee that more material will be diverted from the waste
stream.
Second, lightweight coated papers containing 50% total recycled
fiber are not currently economically or technologically feasible
for large-scale producers who use large paper machines. As a
result, all recycled lightweight coated paper meeting the current
de facto industry standard of 50% total recycled fiber with 10%
post-consumer fiber are only produced on smaller machines owned by
smaller-scale paper producers. The resulting quantity is not
sufficient to supply high-circulation publications. For example,
while Time Inc. prints the Canadian edition of Time and five other
U.S. titles on recycled paper containing 50% total recycled fiber
with 10% post-consumer fiber, it is unable to obtain enough of this
paper to print its entire U.S. edition of Time on this paper, as it
would like.
Third, regarding the 15% post-consumer standard, it is questionable
whether many large mills will be able to reach this standard in the
near future, especially in high grades such as lightweight coated
paper. These mills were designed to use virgin wood pulp and
cannot efficiently substitute large amounts of post-consumer
recovered fiber (which contains contaminants) without causing
costly machine breakdowns. While progress is being made by paper
companies in producing coated paper in progressively lighter
weights with progressively higher levels of both pre- and post-
consumer fiber, there are significant technical difficulties to be
worked out.
By beginning with a 10% post-consumer standard without a 50% total
recycled content requirement, more mills would be encouraged to
make recycled paper, resulting in the use of a greater amount of
recycled fiber and the diversion of more post-consumer waste from
the waste stream. Thus, magazine publishers who cannot now buy
adequate supplies of recycled coated paper would be able to do so.
Fourth, a federal procurement standard may well be regarded as a de
facto industry standard and be incorporated into federal and state
environmental labelling laws. If the standard for calling paper
"recycled" is raised to 50% total recycled content with 15% post-
- 3 -
consumer content, those publishers currently using "recycled" paper
with 50% total recycled content including 10% post-consumer content
(a considerable number) will have no incentive to use that paper,
and may well revert to using 100% virgin paper.
III. We believe that the Executive Order for printing and writing
paper procurement should contain a single standard of 10% deinked
fiber content.
The use of a deinked fiber standard or a "post-consumer or
comparable" standard, such as that recommended to the EPA by the
RAC, is important. All wastepaper containing inks requires
deinking for recycling, whether the wastepaper is pre-consumer or
post-consumer. Therefore, the distinction made should be whether
the paper is inked, rather than whether it has reached the hands of
the final consumer.
IV. We urge that an Executive Order mandating federal purchases of
"total chlorine free" (TCF) paper be reconsidered.
First, under existing production technologies, totally chlorine
free bleaching results in lower brightness and whiteness in paper,
with no guarantee that the alternative bleaching processes are more
environmentally benign. Magazines require coated papers with high
whiteness and brightness to produce the high quality images
associated with the medium. At the present time, this level of
whiteness and brightness can only be produced with the use of some
form of chlorine bleaching. A reduction of image quality would
place many magazines at a serious disadvantage in competing with
television and other media for advertising, thus threatening their
economic survival.
Second, there is no evidence that alternatives to chlorine
bleaching are more environmentally benign than certain chlorine
bleaching methods. As you may know, bleaching processes using
elemental chlorine result in the emission of dioxin, which is
harmful to the environment. However, bleaching processes using
chlorine dioxide result in a reduction of dioxin emissions to below
measurable levels. We know of no research evidence that indicates
that totally chlorine free bleaching (eliminating even the use of
chlorine dioxide) will result in further reduction of dioxin
emissions than is achieved through the use of chlorine dioxide.
MPA applauds the move by a growing number of paper mills to
substitute chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine, thus reducing
dioxin emissions to below measurable levels. While we would
support a phased-in elimination of elemental chlorine, we urge that
alternative bleaching processes be studied more carefully before an
Executive Order mandating government purchases of TCF papers is
made.
- 4 -
We strongly urge you to reconsider the draft Executive Order.
Enclosed is our statement on federal procurement standards,
presented at the public forum that was held by the EPA in March.
Sincerely,
Donald D Kummer/eld
Donald Kummerfeld
CC: The Honorable Al Gore
Mr. Thomas F. MacLarty
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 2, 1993
Mr. Jonathan Kleinman
Editor, Energy Ideas
Government Purchasing Project
P.O. Box 19367
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Kleinman:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your work on new and
innovative technologies to reduce energy consumption. It was
good to hear from you, and I apologize for the delay in my
response.
As you know, I share President Clinton's commitment to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. I certainly appreciate learning
about your interest in performing an energy audit of the White
House. As you may know, a team has recently completed an
environmental audit of the entire White House Complex, and we
expect their report to be forthcoming in the near future.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
GOVERNMENT PURCHASING PROJECT
P.O. Box 19367
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
(202) 387-8030
March 16, 1993
Katie McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty,
I am the editor/author of Energy Ideas, a monthly newsletter which focuses on the use of energy
efficient and renewable energy technologies by Federal, state and local government entities.
While I am fairly certain that our director, Eleanor Lewis, has been in contact with you, I know
that she has not asked me to place you on our mailing list. In speaking with John Elkind at the
Council on Environmental Quality, he recommended that I send to both you and Kathy Zoi the
back issues and add your names to our subscription list. It is not my intention to simply add to
the bales of paper which you must undoubtedly be sent but to help present to you an inventory
of what is going on at the Federal, state and local level concerning the actual implementation of
efficient technologies - - the obstacles that people overcome, the technologies that are available,
the problems that people experience with the technologies and how they solve those problems.
In particular, I want to approach you about the possibility of conducting an energy audit of the
White House residence (and, perhaps, the West Wing), identifying the innovative, reliable and
available technologies which could vastly reduce its energy consumption and installing those
technologies. Such projects are already underway in other countries: for example, the Thai
government is already working on a project to retrofit its Command Building, which houses the
Ministerial staff, to set an example for the rest of Thailand. With its visitors, from citizens to
international officials and journalists, the educational impact of such a retrofit is tremendous.
Ralph Nader, the founder of our organization, has expressed interest in writing to President
Clinton to recommend that the White House undertake this project and I was interested in
learning to what extent such an endeavor may already be on the agenda.
I hope that the newsletter proves informative and useful to you. If someone could respond about
the potential for an energy retrofit at the White House, I would be very grateful.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Kleinman
Editor, Energy Ideas
Printed on 100% recycled paper with 10% post-consumer content, rebleached with hydrogen peroxide
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 2, 1993
Ms. Serena Krow
c/o V.O.W.S.
Stevenson's Union
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Ms. Krow:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the proposed change in
the U.S. Forest Service administrative appeals regulation. It
was good to hear from you, and I apologize for the delay in my
response.
As you know, I share President Clinton's and Vice President
Gore's commitment to the preservation of our environment. In
response to overwhelming interest on this issue, the Forest
Service extended the public comment period on the administrative
appeals process to last 45 days. I appreciate learning your
thoughts about this matter.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Kathena. Mrs.D
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Dear ms. McGenty
may 18,1993
changes to weaken the USFS appeal process
I am writing to strongly urge that the proposed be
expesed as the sham that they are and be
stricken at once!
emergeroy-exempting sales from public review If
the proposed mle allow the FS to declare an
a timber snle is appealed and the FS does not
make an appeal decision, the orginal decision standa
and the logging can proceed! The USFS proposests
notify people only through legal notices in local
newspopers! This to our National Hentage ! the appeals
process should be strengthened not weakered.
fireculy, Sevena know
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 2, 1993
Mr. Gordon D. Kinder, III
2100 3rd Avenue, #1604
Seattle, WA 98121-2303
Dear Mr. Kinder:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the proposed change in
the U.S. Forest Service administrative appeals regulation. It
was good to hear from you, and I apologize for the delay in my
response.
As you know, I share President Clinton's and Vice President
Gore's commitment to the preservation of our environment. In
response to overwhelming interest on this issue, the Forest
Service extended the public comment period on the administrative
appeals process to last 45 days. I appreciate learning your
thoughts about this matter.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Kathena Masis
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Cotton
(Gaede
Gordon D. Kinder III
2100 3rd Avenue, #1604
Seattle, WA 98121-2303
May 19, 1993
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Director, Office of
Environmental Policy
Room 360
Old Executive Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Sir: Madam:
I am writing to strongly object to the proposed new rules governing the appeals of timber
sales on Federal lands.
The draft regulations violate both the spirit and the intent of the law protecting the public's
right to participate in the timber sale process. They should be re-written to conform to the law
passed by Congress.
A. The "emergency rule", allowing the Forest Service to declare and emergency
exempting sales from public review should not be included in the regulations. This rule was
NOT included in the law Congress passed last year, and possesses an uncomfortable potential for
abuse. It could open the door to massive salvage sales while denying the public the ability to
either comment or appeal. The only recourse the public would have would be costly litigation.
B. The proposed rule would permit logging to go forward on sales which have been
appealed but not ruled upon. This is ridiculous. It strips the Forest Service of any incentive or
sense of obligation to decide appeals, thereby removing the element of accountability to the
public, which accountability is the manifest intent of Congressional legislation. This provision
should be eliminated entirely from the new rules.
C. Elimination of the "mailbox" rule in the proposed regulations makes public participation
even more difficult. This provision should be changed, and the original "mailbox rule",
permitting acceptance of all comment(s) filed by the deadline(s), should be restored.
D. The regulations should require that anyone who has asked to be notified about timber
sales or other projects must be mailed a notice of the opportunity to submit comments on a
proposed sale. Such a requirement was explicitly mandated in the legislation passed by Congress
last year. Failure to include it in the new regulations is a violation of that legal requirement.
It MUST, BY LAW be included in the new rules.
E. The new rules lack any provision for a second-level or discretionary review of timber
sale appeals. Such discretionary review is essential for objectivity in the appeals process, and
was a critical component of the old rules. Provisions for such second-level/discretionary
review should be restored.
F. The proposed rules would limit the basis for appeals to a range of issues unaccept-
ably narrow in scope. The new rules should permit a range of issues which can be appealed that
are as broad as those provided for in the old rules which they will replace.
The new rules, as presently proposed, are a transparent endeavor to emasculate the ability
of the public to participate in a meaningful fashion in the timber sales appeals process. The
aforementioned proposed revisions constitute a capitulation to the timber industry, which would
like nothing more than to eradicate public participation entirely. This de minimis approach is
both unacceptable, and in certain particulars, contrary to express legislative intent. I urge you in
the strongest possible terms to correct the aforementioned deficiencies in the proposed
regulations.
Yours truly,
Gordon D. Kinder, III
Gordon D. Kinder III
2100 3rd Avenue, #1604
Seattle, WA 98121-2303
May 19, 1993
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Director, Office of
Environmental Policy
Room 360
Old Executive Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Sir. Madam:
I am writing to strongly object to the proposed new rules governing the appeals of timber
sales on Federal lands.
The draft regulations violate both the spirit and the intent of the law protecting the public's
right to participate in the timber sale process. They should be re-written to conform to the law
passed by Congress.
A. The "emergency rule", allowing the Forest Service to declare and emergency
exempting sales from public review should not be included in the regulations. This rule was
NOT included in the law Congress passed last year, and possesses an uncomfortable potential for
abuse. It could open the door to massive salvage sales while denying the public the ability to
either comment or appeal. The only recourse the public would have would be costly litigation.
B. The proposed rule would permit logging to go forward on sales which have been
appealed but not ruled upon. This is ridiculous. It strips the Forest Service of any incentive or
sense of obligation to decide appeals, thereby removing the element of accountability to the
public, which accountability is the manifest intent of Congressional legislation. This provision
should be eliminated entirely from the new rules.
C. Elimination of the "mailbox" rule in the proposed regulations makes public participation
even more difficult. This provision should be changed, and the original "mailbox rule",
permitting acceptance of all comment(s) filed by the deadline(s), should be restored.
D. The regulations should require that anyone who has asked to be notified about timber
sales or other projects must be mailed a notice of the opportunity to submit comments on a
proposed sale. Such a requirement was explicitly mandated in the legislation passed by Congress
last year. Failure to include it in the new regulations is a violation of that legal requirement.
It MUST, BY LAW be included in the new rules.
E. The new rules lack any provision for a second-level or discretionary review of timber
sale appeals. Such discretionary review is essential for objectivity in the appeals process, and
was a critical component of the old rules. Provisions for such second-level/discretionary
review should be restored.
F. The proposed rules would limit the basis for appeals to a range of issues unaccept-
ably narrow in scope. The new rules should permit a range of issues which can be appealed that
are as broad as those provided for in the old rules which they will replace.
The new rules, as presently proposed, are a transparent endeavor to emasculate the ability
of the public to participate in a meaningful fashion in the timber sales appeals process. The
aforementioned proposed revisions constitute a capitulation to the timber industry, which would
like nothing more than to eradicate public participation entirely. This de minimis approach is
both unacceptable, and in certain particulars, contrary to express legislative intent. I urge you in
the strongest possible terms to correct the aforementioned deficiencies in the proposed
regulations.
Yours truly,
Gordon D. Kinder, III
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 17, 1993
Mr. Jon Kusler, Esq.
Executive Director
The Association of State
Wetland Managers, Inc.
P.O. Box 2463
Berne, NY 12023
Dear Mr. Kusler:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about
federal wetlands policy and your proposed wetlands strategy and
legislation. I apologize for the delay in my response.
As you know, President Clinton and Vice President Gore are
committed to the preservation of our natural resources in a way
that leads to strong and sustainable economic growth. This
Administration shares your concerns about the uncertainties
surrounding wetlands policies of the past.
The Interagency Working Group on Federal Wetlands Policy
includes representatives of all federal agencies involved in, or
impacted by, the protection of wetlands. In addition, the
working group has solicited a broad range of views, including
those of the Congress; state and local government;
environmentalists; developers and homebuilders; agricultural
interests; and others. The working group is scheduled to report
their findings and recommendations in the near future.
I appreciate the copy of your draft Wetlands and Watershed
Management Act which you enclosed hearing your concerns about
policy options with regard to federal wetlands policy. I am sure
that the findings of the Interagency Task Force will adequately
address the important issues that you raise.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
The Association of State Wetland Managers. Inc.
Dedicated to the Protection and Management of the Nation's Wetlands
June 8, 1993
Executive Director
Jon A. Kusler, Esq.
Box 2463
Kathleen McGinty
Berne, NY 12023
Rm. 358
518-872-1804
Old Executive Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Chairman
Scott Hausmann
Wisconsin DNR
Dear Ms. McGinty:
Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Re: National Wetland Policy; Clean Water Act Reauthorization
608-266-7360
We understand that the White House has recently convened a
Vice Chairman
Patricia Riexinger
wetland task force to address national wetland policy and, more
New York DEC
specifically, Clean Water Act reauthorization
50 Wolf Rd.
Albany, NY 12233
The Association of State Wetland Managers has developed two
518-457-9713
technically-based, wetland policy documents that we hope will be
Secretary-Treasurer
of some interest to you and your task group:
Richard Hamann, Esq.
University of Florida
--A proposed Wetland Strategy for the Clinton/Gore
230 Bruton-Geer Hall
Administration; and
Gainesville, FL 23611
904-392-2237
--A proposed "Wetlands and Watershed Management Act of 1993".
Board Members
These materials have been under development during the last five
Michael Aurelia
months and reflect a great deal of input and discussion with the
Greenwich Wetland Agey.
states, other state organizations, environmental organizations,
John Banta
and other groups.
Adirondack Park Agcy.
Both the strategy statement and draft bill include a variety of
Taber Hand
"middle ground" measures to simultaneously improve the protection
The Dodge Foundation
and restoration of wetland and related resources while also better
Marvin Hubbell
meeting landowner needs. Both reflect a broad outreach effort
Illinois Dept. of Conservation
including a range of workshops and symposia with over three
thousand wetland scientists, consultants, federal agency staff,
Robin Lewis, III
state and local government representatives, and landowners over
Lewis Environmental Serv., Inc.
the last two years. See Appendix C of the "Wetlands and Watershed
R. Terry Huffman
Management Act of 1993" for a description of these meetings. Both
Huffman and Associates, Inc.
the strategy statement and draft bill propose an improved federal,
state, and local partnership to make better use of scarce human and
Ken Bierly
financial resources.
OR Div. of State Lands
The proposed strategy statement and draft Wetlands and Watershed
Pat Parenteau
Perkins & Coie, Inc.
Management Act of 1993 are designed to help implement the National
Governors Association's wetland policy recommendations released in
Kevin Erwin
February 1992. See Appendices A and B of the Wetlands and Watershed
Kevin Erwin Cons. Ecologist
Management Act. The bill is also the result of a two year process
involving many meetings with states, federal agencies, environmental
organizations, developers and other groups.
Box 2463 Berne, NY 12023-9746 518-872-1804 Fax: 518-872-2171
These materials are also being sent to Mr. Babbitt, Ms.
Browner, Mr. Dickey and the chairmen of the three Congressional
Committees with Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
We hope that you will find these materials useful and that they
will help move the national dialogue in a pragmatic, problem-solving
and cost-conscious direction. Please contact us if we can be of
further assistance.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Jms1 Jon Kusler Kuslu
Executive Director
CC. Keith Laughlin
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 16, 1993
Mr. Alan C. Kessler
Attorney at Law
Buchanan Ingersoll
Professional Corporation
Two Logan Square, 12th Floor
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Dear Mr. Kessler:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Dr. David Casnoff's work
in agronomic consulting and his interest in working for the Clinton
Administration.
Unfortunately, all staff positions have been filled in the
Office on Environmental Policy. However, Dr. Casnoff's resume is
impressive, and I will keep it on file should openings become
available in the future. I am also forwarding a copy of Dr.
Casnoff's information to the White House Personnel Office for their
review.
Again, thank you for sharing this information with me.
Sincerely,
Latie
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Buchanan Ingersoll
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Attorneys
Two Logan Square, 12th Floor
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2771
Alan C. Kessler
Telephone: 215-665-8700
215-665-3947
Fax: 215-569-2066
July 23, 1993
Ms. Kathryn McGinty
Special Assistant to the President
and Director of the Office of
Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building
Room 358
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Katie:
I am pleased to enclose the curriculum vitae and other related information on Dr. David
M. Casnoff. Dr. Casnoff currently heads up his own consulting company, Casnoff Associates
Agronomic Consulting. His company, among other things, has conducted studies in plant
species, conducted studies to screen plants for tolerance to high levels of heavy metals and
consulted with various companies on revegetation of various types of landfills and toxic waste
dumps.
In short, David has significant experience in agronomics and, fortunately, at this point
in his life has decided that he would like to turn to government and public service.
As you may recall, having served both in the Presidential Transition and in the
Presidential Personnel efforts, I am well aware of the large pool of qualified applicants, but
would nonetheless appreciate it very much if Dr. Casnoff could be given consideration for an
appropriate position.
Kindest regards,
Oer Alan C. Kessler
ACK/bkd
Enclosures
cc: David M. Casnoff, Ph.D.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 18, 1993
Mr. Kent Krukemitt
Rural Route 1, Box 128
Homer, IL 61849
Dear Mr. Krukemitt:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
the use of ethanol.
I share President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's
commitment to the preservation of our environment in a way that
leads to strong and sustainable economic growth. President
Clinton and I believe that we must encourage the study and
development of technologies for alternatively fueled vehicles.
As you know, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
currently looking into a proposed rule on the use of ethanol and
its status under the Clean Air Act of 1990. I await the EPA's
findings in this regard.
I appreciate learning your concerns about the listing of
ethanol under the Clean Air Act. Rest assured that this
Administration will continue its efforts to promote clean-burning
fuels.
Again, thank you for sharing this information with me.
Sincerely,
Lather a.
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
7/31/93
Ms. Kathleen Milinty,
Deputy Director to to President
and Director, Office Environmental Pololicy
Old excutive 0 flere Building - Room 360
17th street and Pennsylvania An. Nn
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Ms. McCinly,
I am ashing y all to encourage
President Clinton to support can
based ethanal in the clean Air Act and
receive the same muchet occer as MTBE.
Exhanal has been proven to be better for
cleanair inciease US jobs, and
for me as a com famer it means
25 I for every bushel of com Lproduck.
Lt would also decrease the need for
federal Ay subsidies and reduce federal
9 spending.
Thank you
Kent Kruhentt
RR, Box 128
Homer, IL 61849
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 18, 1993
Mr. Robert E. Koeller
606 Monticello Drive
Godfrey, IL 62035
Dear Mr. Koeller:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
the use of ethanol.
I share President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's
commitment to the preservation of our environment in a way that
leads to strong and sustainable economic growth. President
Clinton and I believe that we must encourage the study and
development of technologies for alternatively fueled vehicles.
As you know, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
currently looking into a proposed rule on the use of ethanol and
its status under the Clean Air Act of 1990. I await the EPA's
findings in this regard.
I appreciate learning your concerns about the listing of
ethanol under the Clean Air Act. Rest assured that this
Administration will continue its efforts to promote clean-burning
fuels.
Again, thank you for sharing this information with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Dear Ms. McGinty:
A Recent scientific study participated
in by Argoune National Lab determined
ethruol was equal to or better than
MTBE as du answer to clean air.
Pres. Clinton pletged to support
ethsuol. The agriculture economy
usage of ethanol would provide.
certainly needs the support increased
ROBERT E. KOELLER
606 MONTICELLO.DRIVE
GODFREY, IL. 62035-2432
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 18, 1993
Mr. Kent Kleinschmidt
President
Illinois Corn Growers Assn.
P.O. Box 1623
Bloomington, IL 61702
Dear Mr. Kleinschmidt:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
the use of ethanol.
I share President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's
commitment to the preservation of our environment in a way that
leads to strong and sustainable economic growth. President
Clinton and I believe that we must encourage the study and
development of technologies for alternatively fueled vehicles.
As you know, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
currently looking into a proposed rule on the use of ethanol and
its status under the Clean Air Act of 1990. I await the EPA's
findings in this regard.
I appreciate learning your concerns about the listing of
ethanol under the Clean Air Act. Rest assured that this
Administration will continue its efforts to promote clean-burning
fuels.
Again, thank you for sharing this information with me.
Sincerely,
McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
ILLINOIS
CORN
GROWERS
ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 1623 Bloomington, Illinois 61702-1623 Ph. (309) 557-3257
August 5, 1993
Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Director to the President
and Director, Ofc. of Enviornmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building - Room 360
17th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Director McGinty:
The Illinois Corn Growers Association would appreciate your help in allowing ethanol the same
market access in the Clean Air Act as the oil industry's methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).
As you mentioned during the campaign, ethanol is a renewable, domestically-produced fuel. It
produces jobs here in the Midwest both in the rural and urban areas.
If ethanol is allowed in the Clean Air Act, net revenues in Illinois will increase by about $5 per
acre. At the same time government outlays for deficiency payments will be reduced by $1.5
billion per year. Ethanol a rural economic stimulus that can reduce federal spending. These
results are from a recently completed study conducted by the University of Illinois' Agricultural
Economics Department.
Ethanol is as good as MTBE in combating ozone pollution in our cities concluded a recent study
conducted by the Council of Great Lakes Governors. This was an unbiased study and was
conducted with the assistance of state air pollution agencies in the Great Lakes Region, the
Argonne National Laboratory and with inputs from the USEPA.
Please, we urge your help in giving American farmers the opportunity to produce fuel for our
nation and fuel for our economy, rather than the continued exportation of dollars and jobs for
foreign oil.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ILLINOIS CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
Kent Kleinschmidt
President
Printed with corn-soy ink on re-cycled paper
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 18, 1993
Ms. Dorothy King
Route 1
Knoxville, IL 61448
Dear Ms. King:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
the use of ethanol.
I share President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's
commitment to the preservation of our environment in a way that
leads to strong and sustainable economic growth. President
Clinton and I believe that we must encourage the study and
development of technologies for alternatively fueled vehicles.
As you know, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
currently looking into a proposed rule on the use of ethanol and
its status under the Clean Air Act of 1990. I await the EPA's
findings in this regard.
I appreciate learning your concerns about the listing of
ethanol under the Clean Air Act. Rest assured that this
Administration will continue its efforts to promote clean-burning
fuels.
Again, thank you for sharing this information with me.
Sincerely,
Kathen a. M.Sag
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Knowile, atl
8-4-93
Deputy Did, Office fEminonmentalPolicy
Kathleen Director medinty
old Executive off Bldg Boon360
175 so & Penns are., NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Depr Mr. mc Cirty
I'm a Corn grower in Illinois. It
would me an more dollars from my
Clean air act.
Corn crop if ethanol 14 allowed in the
gosaline. Over 1/2 of our nation, fuel supply
Ethand must play a role in reformidated
is imported Ethanal is resewable and
gomes from Carn that my neighbors and
raise not only will ethanol help clean
Our air, but greater use will create Jobs,
stimulate the economy, increase tax review,
decrease farm forogram programents, and reduce
the number of accident-prone or takens
use reforments gas for the welfare of
in Our in watermags, Please support ethange
the united States Thank you.
Reape atfully yours,
Dorothy RI King
Knorpe Clete 61448
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 18, 1993
Mr. John T. Kabat
Rural Route 1, Box 4
Scheller, IL 62883
Dear Mr. Kabat:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
the use of ethanol.
I share President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's
commitment to the preservation of our environment in a way that
leads to strong and sustainable economic growth. President
Clinton and I believe that we must encourage the study and
development of technologies for alternatively fueled vehicles.
As you know, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
currently looking into a proposed rule on the use of ethanol and
its status under the Clean Air Act of 1990. I await the EPA's
findings in this regard.
I appreciate learning your concerns about the listing of
ethanol under the Clean Air Act. Rest assured that this
Administration will continue its efforts to promote clean-burning
fuels.
Again, thank you for sharing this information with me.
Sincerely,
Meby
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
RR#1 Box4
Scholler, Il 62883
august!, 1993
Dear Kathleen mc Genty,
We need your help. We are the americans
of the United States of America who want american
jobs and clean air. you can help clean out
environment by using 10% ethanol to clean our
can exhaust by 25%. Please do not be influenced
by the big oil companie. Ethanol will
help all Americans. The decision is in
your hands to help everyone.
John Sincerely T. Kabat
Agreelture Dasher
Farmer
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 31, 1993
Mr. Gary Krauss, Project Director
National Research Council
Water Science and Technology Board
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Dear Mr. Krauss:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your border project
initiative and planning meeting.
President Clinton and I are committed to the preservation of
our environment in a way that leads to strong and sustainable
economic growth. This Administration supports programs of this
kind in the area of border protection. We would appreciate being
kept informed of your activities.
I hope that you have a productive meeting with much local
border area NGO participation. Again, thank you for contacting
me.
Sincerely, Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Amie
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20418
Dani
(202) 334-3422
July 29, 1993
(202) 334-1961 FAX
Katy McGinty
Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty:
I would like to inform you of a new project initiative by the Water Science and
Technology Board of the National Research Council concerning water resources along the
U.S.-Mexico border. There are, of course, many issues surrounding the management of
scarce water resources along the border. I would be very interested in receiving suggestions
from your office regarding an appropriate focus for an independent study that would be
jointly undertaken by the U.S. and Mexican Academies of Science and Engineering on this
subject.
Enclosed is a statement of intent which describes the project, the objectives for the
planning meeting, and the initial list of participants. If you have any comments that you
would like me to pass on to the planning committee, please forward them to me no later than
September 15. I would also appreciate any names of individuals and organizations which
may be interested in supporting this endeavor.
Thank you for your interest, and I will be happy to keep you informed of the study
development.
Sincerely,
Gary Krauss
Project Director
Enclosure
The National Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering to
serve government and other organizations The Water Science and Technology Board is responsible to the National Research Council through the
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems and the Commission on Geosciences. Environment. and Resources
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20418
(202) 334-3422
STATEMENT OF INTENT
(202) 334-1961 FAX
Project Initiative: Managing Water Resource Issues Along the U.S./Mexico Border Area
The Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB) of the National Research Council
(NRC) will be holding a planning meeting to examine an appropriate role for the NRC and
the Mexican Academies of Science and Engineering with regard to water resource and water
quality issues along the U.S./Mexico border area. Water is a resource that needs to be
understood and managed at national, regional, and local levels. Additionally, the waters
along the border need to be understood by scientists and decision-makers in both the U.S.
and Mexico. A joint academies study on this area may be the most direct way to assure that
good scientific thinking and judgement is recognized and brought into the bi-national policy
process. The one-day meeting will be held on Monday, September 27, 1993 in Tucson,
Arizona at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, which is affiliated with the
University of Arizona. The NRC has identified a small group of individuals with relevant
experience in water resource management, hydrology, economics, policy, sanitation, and
human health to participate in the meeting. The presidents of the Mexican Academia de la
Investigación Cientifica (Academy of Science), and the Academia Nacional de Ingeniería
(National Academy of Engineering) have also been asked to attend and to invite experts from
Mexico. The result of the planning meeting would be a better definition of the key issues,
the identification of specific interests by potential sponsors, and the development of a joint-
academies proposal.
Although the precise scope and focus of the study will be determined during the
planning session, it is likely that the study will have several components including: 1) the
state of knowledge concerning quantity and quality of surface water supplies, and surface
water requirements and use by different sectors of the population, i.e, urban, industry, and
agriculture, 2) issues of shared ground water resources including quantity, current
withdrawal rates and uses, quality and contamination problems, 3) fate and transport of
water contaminants including biological pathogens and industrial toxins, 4) options for
treatment of water and wastewater, 5) an analysis of the institutional arrangements affecting
the allocation and management of water and the incentives (or lack of) for conserving water
and protecting its quality, and 6) cooperative activities between sister cities along the border
such as Nogalas/Nogalas, El Paso/Juarez, and Laredo/Nuevo Laredo and ways to increase
further cooperation and infrastructure building along with better public participation in the
management of water resources along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The initial list of participants in the planning meeting include:
Helen Ingram, Meeting Chair, Udall Center for Public Policy, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ
F. Lee Brown, Natural Resources Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
The National Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering to
serve government and other organizations. The Water Science and Technology Board is responsible to the National Research Council through the
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems and the Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources.
Randall Charbaneau, Center for Research on Water Resources, University of Texas, Austin,
TX
Margaret Diaz, Diaz and Diaz Pediatricians, Brownsville, TX
D'arcy Frownfelter, Frownfelter and Leal, El Paso, TX
Ismael Herrera Revilla, Presidente de la Academia Nacional de Ingeniería, A.C., Villa
Olímpca, Mexico, D.F.
Alan Jones, Texas Water Commission, Austin, TX
Mary Kelly, Texas Center for Policy Studies, Austin, TX
Daniel Okun, Environmental Sciences and Engineering Department, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Duncan Patton, Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Antonio Peña Diaz, Presidente de la Academia de la Investigación Cientifica, A.C., San
Angel, Mexico, D.F.
The NRC has an ongoing relationship with the Mexican Academies of Science,
Engineering, and Medicine to help build a binational, nongovernmental partnership that will
sustain and strengthen science and technology in both countries through collaborative
activities. A significant aspect of joint activities between the Mexican academies and the
NRC is to provide the Mexican academies with experience in conducting a high level,
independent scientific investigation. The process is helping to build a parallel institutional
framework in Mexico, similar in position to the National Research Council, that can mobilize
science and engineering talent to address national issues and promote wise government
policy. In areas of mutual concern, such as shared water resources, this relationship between
the academies is particularly significant.
Suggestions for the study's focus, questions, and other responses can be directed to
Gary Krauss, Project Director, WSTB (202) 334-3422, or FAX: (202) 334-1961.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 18, 1993
Mr. Brett KenCairn
Executive Director
Rogue Institute
P.O. Box 3213
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Brett:
Thank you for the information regarding the Applegate
Partnership ecosystem mangement project. I appreciate further
learning about your efforts.
The information you sent was both timely and helpful. As
you know, we are continuing to implement our forest ecosystem
management plan, and hope to use creative ecosystems management
and job retraining schemes along the lines of the Applegate
Partnership. I appreciate your keeping me up to date.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Rogue Institute
for Ecology and Economy
P.O. Box 3213
Ashland, Oregon 97520
503-482-6031
30 April 1993
Katie McGinty
Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Katie:
I have enclosed a copy of the report we have just completed on
the employment opportunities resulting from the implementation of
an ecosystem based management approach on the 500,000 acres
within the Applegate Partnership project area.
I should note that this study was conducted on a very short time
frame. Much of the information we needed has never been
collected in one place before and required both detective work
and extrapolation to piece together. We are hesitant to assert
that the specific numbers generated are appropriate targets.
However, we are confident that the results give us an accurate
relative comparison between the two systems.
I know it is quite difficult sorting through all of the
information which may be flooding over you at this time. I have
compiled a two page summary of the report to give you the
essence. If you have any questions, or would be interested in
seeing parts of the study expanded, please contact us at the
address listed above.
I appreciate the difficulty of your task. I hope you are finding
hope and fun in it too.
Sustainably yours,
Brett KenCairn
Executive Director
Rogue Institute
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 3, 1993
Mr. Jack T. Kneifl
Kneifl Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 817
Lexington, NE 68850
Dear Mr. Kneifl:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the work of Dr.
Clyde W. Frank on a new technology with applications for
environmental restoration and waste management. I apologize for
the delay in my response.
As you know, I share President Clinton's and Vice President
Gore's commitment to the preservation of our environment in a way
that leads to strong and sustainable economic growth.
I appreciate learning your thoughts about your work in
environmental restoration and waste management. I am forwarding
your information to the Department of Energy for their review and
response.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Kneifl Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 817 Lexington, NE 68850
308-785-3130
March 25, 1993
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Office on Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building, Room 358
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty:
During my visit to Washington, D.C. this week, I attempted to arrange a
meeting with you. It is unfortunate you did not have the time.
I have been working with Dr. Clyde W. Frank, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Technology Development, DOE, since January 1, 1993 regarding a new technology
that has many applications in the environmental restoration and waste
management arena. I was hoping to brief you on this activity and to request
your assistance in the support of this technology.
I am enclosing with this correspondence two items, as follows:
1. A three page summary which relates to the inventor of the technology and
describes the activities with DOE and Congress which we are currently
pursuing.
2. A copy of a three-part article which appeared in a scientific
publication, "Explore" (previously known as "Raum and Zeit"). This
article provides a very good summary of the history behind the inventor,
Professor Yull Brown, and his technology.
I would appreciate you taking the time to review this material. In doing so,
you will see that this technology has the ability of creating a new, multi-
billion dollar, environmentally positive industry and if we act quickly
enough, we will be able to do this in the United States for the benefit of the
United States.
I would ask that you demonstrate your support for this program by contacting
the office of Hazel Leary, Energy Secretary.
Thank you very much for this consideration. On my next trip to Washington, I
will call you again. In the mean time, please call if you have any questions.
I have listed an 800 number below.
Sincere regards,
KNEIFL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Kneifl Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 817 Lexington, NE 68850
308-785-3130
Mary
April 6, 1993
President Bill Clinton
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20001
Dear Mr. President:
For the past six months, I have been attempting to introduce to
the United States Government, specifically DOE, a brilliant
scientist and his technology (Brown's Technology), an environmen-
tally positive technology that has the potential of creating a
multi-billion dollar industry and thousands of new jobs that
would be a part of it. During January and early February, the
Department of Energy performed a scientific review of this
technology and determined it has significant value to the United
States Government. They also did a security check on the scien-
tist who is a 71 year-old Bulgarian-born Australian national, and
he passed the check without any problem, whatsoever.
My goal is to assist Professor Yull Brown in obtaining a U.S.
citizenship as soon as possible and to raise significant funding
to establish an organization that will further the research and
development of his technology. The DOE Deputy Assistant Secre-
tary, Dr. Clyde Frank, who effectuated the scientific review not
only indicated the technology has value to the United States but
also indicated cash-flow would be generated within 18 months
after receipt of funding. I believe we can generate cash flow
sooner than that
that is, if we can get off dead center and
find someone within the administration who is capable of making a
decision, rather than finding excuses for why it can't be done.
Professor Brown is in this country on a travel visa (Classifica-
tion B-1) originally dated May 29, 1992 and extended on October
29, 1992. His visa is scheduled to expire on April 29, 1993
which is less than a month away.
If I am unable to get funding for further development of Brown's
Technology, Professor Brown will go to China, Japan or Korea and
develop his technology there. He is being courted on almost a
daily basis by these three countries and Bulgaria. All of them
are willing to provide him with unlimited funding and other
perquisites--whatever it takes and whatever he desires. He has
done significant work with the Chinese in the past and they are
President Bill Clinton
April 6, 1993
Page 2
fully aware of the potential for his science and are already
producing equipment which makes use of the technology; further-
more they have indicated they will use Brown's Technology for
weapons of destruction.
Professor Brown is not interested in working with any of those
countries because they are socialistic and he believes in and has
fought all his life for the type of freedom that is represented
by the United States. That is part of the reason for his intense
desire to become a U.S. citizen.
Professor Brown, however, is determined to see his technology
developed and implemented across its multitude of applications
before he dies. If he cannot find acceptance within the United
States, he will more than likely return to China where he knows
he can accomplish his objectives.
Prior to your inauguration, your transition energy cluster (Gus
Speth) took a very sincere interest in Professor Brown and his
technology and felt that action was imperative prior to January
20. They immediately referred it to the DOE. On December 28, we
began working with Dr. Clyde Frank, a very astute DOE Deputy
Assistant Secretary who has been very helpful in many ways, e.g.
in performing the scientific review. He understands the extraor-
dinary circumstances which are present. He has determined that
something should be done to further this technology in a big way.
However, there is a problem.
There doesn't seem to be anyone in your administration who can
make a decision and see that something positive happens. People
on your staff and the Vice President's staff
"
don't have time
to meet [with us]."
So now it appears that since this country is "too busy" to take
notice, we will lose this man and his technology
and probably
end up purchasing it in years to come from a country that is
currently considered our worst enemy!
Mr. President, during your campaign, you indicated one of your
highest priorities was to create new industry in this country and
the jobs that go with it--to again make this country the re-
spected industrial giant it once was.
Those are wonderful ideas. But it is time we started to "walk
the talk," as they say. And we are about to lose the biggest
opportunity available to accomplish what you expressed.
President Bill Clinton
April 6, 1993
Page 3
Isn't there anyone in your administration who is willing to make
the decisions that are necessary to make this happen quickly? I
have spent considerable time and money to bring it this far, but
I cannot continue to tear down the road blocks alone. I need
your help!
I have enclosed with this correspondence a three-page summary
that provides some detail about Professor Yull Brown and his
technology. I have also enclosed a more lengthy three-part
article which provides greater detail and background information.
I hope you would take time to read the three-part article. If
not, at least take time to read the three-page summary. And then
cause something good to happen for this country
QUICKLY!
Thank you.
Sincere regards,
KNEIFL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jack T. Kneifl
(800) 658-3270 (Ofc)
(308) 324-3758 (Fax)
(308) 785-2155 (Hme)
CC: Vice President Al Gore
c/o Ms. Kathleen McGinty, Director
Office on Environmental Policy
Ms. Me Cirty, there tensine aprevious week mailing of March They 2' were
delived (it I believe sent you on by Wednesday messinger or during Tuisday the girl of that week.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 3, 1993
tle Kapsner
16
MN 56344
Kapsner:
nk you for contacting my office regarding the siting of
tower in Lastrup, Minnesota. I apologize for the delay
sponse.
you know, I share President Clinton's and Vice President
ommitment to the preservation of our environment in a way
ds to strong and sustainable economic growth.
ppreciate learning of your opposition to the siting of
[ tower in Lastrup, Minnesota. Again, thank you for
your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
Lasvrup, mm 14947
may 27, 1993
Director of Office Environmental Policy
Katie mcginty
Executive Office Buy.
Washington D.C. 20.510
Dear Mo moginty.
I would like to go on record as
opposing The GWEN Tower Project That
IS being stated for Construction east
of Lastrup
This mony Could be better put to
lice on Health Care for everyone or
for continuing programs for education
That are bung cut back in our schools
for lack of funds or to for road and
bridge Constiuction, name a few
and also concerned with The fact
of This tower on The health of and
families in our area - a 40% chance
becomes a large amount if it even
affects one family or person
Sincerely
This Myster Kapener
Box 16
Lastrey nm 56344-0016