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
563877884
label
January 1991 [Memos][2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
563877884
contentType
document
title
January 1991 [Memos][2]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
03661-020b
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Ed Rogers' Correspondence Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
563877884
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1991-01-31
month
1
year
1991
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1991-01-01
month
1
year
1991
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e0e55f25ec9de114
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2025-0647-S
2025-0647-S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin: Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Rogers, Ed, Files
Subseries:
Correspondence Files
OA/ID Number:
03661
Folder ID Number:
03661-020b
Folder Title:
January 1991 [Memos][2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
22
7
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 15, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
ED ROGERS EAR
SUBJECT:
MAYOR EMORY FOLMAR MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA
Emory Folmar, who remains your "most forceful advocate on the
planet", was recently named Citizen of the Year by "The
Montgomery Advertiser" and "The Alabama Journal".
He was Guy Hunt's Finance Chairman and chaired the Inauguration
events last weekend.
As an ardent Bush supporter, he's ready and willing to be called
for 1992 duties.
I thought you might like to see his Citizen of the Year coverage.
Perhaps you would be willing to drop him a note?
Thanks.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 15, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR PATTY PRESOCK
FROM:
ED ROGERS ZR
SUBJECT:
CAMP DAVID INVITEE
Over the weekend I ran into Randy Owen, the lead singer for the
rock group Alabama, and his manager at the Guy Hunt inauguration
in Montgomery.
Randy told me that sometime ago, he was invited to join the
President at Camp David. Unfortunately, he was on tour at the
time and unable to go. He was very upset at missing the visit.
He asked me to make an appeal, or at least inquire about a
possible future invitation.
Please let me know if any follow-up is required.
Thanks.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 11, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU
ROGER PORTER
MICHAEL DELAND
FROM:
ED ROGERS
ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT for STUDY
SUBJECT:
Vince Breglio wanted you to see this
material.
FYI.
Thanks.
Research/Strategy/Management
ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND THE PUBLIC'S PRIORITIES
Energy policy and environmental issues are the focus for this
national study of 1,200 adults conducted jointly by the Washington,
D.C., Republican and Democratic polling firms of
Research/Strategy/Management Inc., and Greenberg/Lake, Inc.
Personal interviews, completed by telephone, were conducted between
the seventh and eleventh of December 1990. The margin of error for
most reported aggregate results is plus or minus three percentage
points. Project director for R/S/M, Inc., is Dr. Vincent J.
Breglio; Ms. Celinda Lake is the project director for
Greenberg/Lake, Inc. This study is the third in a series of
national surveys on energy policy. Previous studies were conducted
in October 1988 and November 1989
A QUICK LOOK AT KEY FINDINGS
The following present a few of the most notable findings:
1. Reducing Oil Dependence. Offered alternative approaches
for dealing with U.S. dependence on foreign oil supplies
-- one based on increasing the oil supply through new
exploration and development and the other based on
reducing demand for fossil fuels through increased
efficiency -- three out of four Americans believe
reducing demand makes more sense than increasing supply.
2.
Global Warming. Seven out of ten persons (69%) feel the
United States should join now with other industrial
countries and limit carbon dioxide emissions from fossil
fuels released into the air rather than wait for more
scientific evidence on the accuracy of global warming
predictions. Three out of four persons (73%) say they
would be willing to pay more for fossil fuels if the
added cost is earmarked to prevent serious consequences
from global warming.
1
Research/Strategy/Management
3. Automotive Energy Standards. Increasing federal fuel
economy standards to 40 mpg by the year 2000 is not only
popular (84% support it) but also represents a strongly
held point of view (63% strongly favor versus only 6%
strongly opposed) 1 Among those who favor the increase,
89% say they would still be in favor of higher fuel
economy standards even if a new car cost the buyer $500
more as a result.
4.
Energy Research Priorities. Americans continue to stress
the development of renewable energy sources such as solar
or wind as their top priority. Seventy-five percent
(75%) would give it the largest or next largest share of
Department of Energy's research dollar and more than half
(59%) believe different energy sources such as solar and
wind should be emphasized more than other strategies to
meet America's energy needs for the future. Energy
conservation runs a close second as a research priority
with two out of three persons (67%) assigning it top
shares of the Department's energy research budget.
5. Home/Building Energy Efficiency. Utilities should be
encouraged to invest in energy efficiency improvements
in their customers' homes and buildings. Clearly, nine
out of ten persons (86%) favor requiring federal and
state regulators to provide incentives to utilities for
such improvements. A similar number (91%) favor
requiring conformity to federal standards for energy
efficiency for new homes financed by FHA or VA mortgages.
1. The ratio of strongly held positive opinion (strongly favor)
to strongly held negative opinion (strongly oppose) is a
measure of attitude intensity. In this case, the intensity
of feeling on the question of fuel economy standards measures
10.5 to 1. Opinions expressed with intensity ratios equal to
or larger than 4 should be noted.
2
Research/Strategy/Management
6.
Other Energy Alternatives. Three additional energy
policy alternatives stand out because of their broad
appeal and high measure of favorable intensity. These
include:
*
incentives to use or develop alternative fuels
such as fuels produced from grains;
*
tax credits for consumers who use renewable
energy sources such as solar or wind power;
*
tax rebates for new cars that get better
mileage than the federal standard.
Conversely, public opinion runs nearly as broad and strong in
opposition to the following:
*
developing oil reserves off-shore or on
publicly-owned land if this might cause some
environmental damage;
*
using coal if this caused some environmental
damage;
*
building more nuclear power plants.
Additional highlights and findings from this national study are
presented in the following sections.
MOOD OF THE COUNTRY
Anxious about conflicts abroad and disturbed by a slowdown in the
economy at home, the year 1990 draws to a close with the majority
of persons (57%) believing the country has gotten off on the wrong
track. Few of the good feelings and positive expectations fueled
by the remarkable events out of central and eastern Europe measured
in last year's study remain intact. Indeed, a drop of seventeen
points has occurred in the percentage of people who say the country
is generally going in the right direction (47% to 30%). Still,
George Bush receives overall job approval from a strong majority
of Americans (60%). This represents an eight point decrease from
his approval rating in our study one year ago (68% to 60%).
On the national domestic agenda, improving education, reducing the
deficit and providing affordable health care are mentioned most
often as top priority items. Energy and environmental concerns are
less salient in the thinking of most persons.
For more detail on the mood of the country refer to Table 1.
3
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 1
MOOD OF THE COUNTRY
QUESTION: Do you feel things in the country are generally going in
the right direction, or have things pretty seriously
gotten off on the wrong track?
Nation Northeast Midwest South West
Right Direction
30
22
33
31
32
Wrong Track
57
66
54
56
52
Don't know/Refused
13
12
13
12
16
QUESTION: And, do you approve or disapprove of the way George Bush
is handling his job as President?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Strongly Approve
25
18
28
27
26
Somewhat Approve
35
37
32
36
35
Somewhat Disapprove
16
19
18
13
16
Strongly Disapprove
14
19
10
14
16
Don't know/Refused
9
7
12
10
7
QUESTION: Other than the state of the economy, which of the
following domestic goals would you say is the most/next
most important for the President to address? (FIRST AND
SECOND MENTION)
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Provide more affordable
36
34
40
34
35
health care
Reduce the federal
42
41
41
42
35
deficit
Protect the
28
28
28
23
33
environment
Improve the quality of
42
43
46
30
39
primary & secondary
education
Strengthen laws to crack
30
25
24
37
33
down on crime
Develop dependable and
15
16
12
17
15
secure sources of
energy
Don't know/Refused
8
3
9
9
10
4
Research/Strategy/Management
ENERGY CRISIS
When asked specifically about their perceptions of our energy
situation today, two out of three persons (67%) hold the view that
even now we are entering a period of energy crisis -- with things
like gasoline shortages, sharply higher prices and oil supply
disruptions -- just as we did in the 1970's.
This contrast with the relative low salience of energy on the
national domestic agenda may be explained in part by perceptions
of our confrontation with Iraq. The reason given most often as the
best explanation of why the United States has troops aligned
against Iraq is -- "to secure Middle East oil supplies for the U.S.
and its allies" (50%). The perception that our foreign oil
supplies are threatened is definitely related to the sense that the
U.S. is entering a period of energy crisis.
The confrontation with Iraq has also precipitated debate over the
best way to take care of the nation's future energy needs. Some
experts argue that the Iraq/Kuwait situation demonstrates the need
to increase our oil supply by opening up domestic oil and gas
exploration off the coasts and in natural wilderness areas. Other
experts argue that it makes more sense to reduce demand by
promoting fuel efficiency, car pooling and mass transportation.
By the margin of three to one (75%), the public endorses the
position of reduced demand over increased development. This
position is favored by all subgroups. From a partisan perspective,
all majority voter groups endorse reducing demand. It is least
popular among conservative Democrats who are the most likely to
support increasing production as their favored alternative. But
even with this group, more than six out of ten favor reducing
demand.
For more detail on each of the above issues see Table 2.
ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND THE FUTURE
Americans are not optimistic that their environment will be better
in the future than it is today. Four out of ten (40%) believe the
quality of their environment will not be as good in just three
years. Those in the West tend to be somewhat more pessimistic than
others with nearly one out of two (46%) who think their environment
will deteriorate over the next three years. Whatever the
perception of the environment in future years, there is strong
agreement that we need some changes from the status quo to meet
America's energy needs.
5
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 2
PROSPECTS OF AN "ENERGY CRISIS"
QUESTION: Some people say the "energy crisis" like the United
States experienced in the 1970's -- with things like
gasoline shortages, sharply higher prices and oil supply
disruptions -- will not happen again. Other people say
even now we are entering a period of energy crisis just
as we did in the 1970's. Which view is closer to your
own?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Will not happen again
24
20
25
22
30
Entering a period of
67
73
66
68
61
crisis even now
Don't know/Refused
9
7
9
10
9
QUESTION: The United States has stationed hundreds of thousands of
troops in the Middle East. Which of the following
reasons best explains why we are there:
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Liberating Kuwait from
28
27
28
26
33
Iraqi occupation
Secure Middle East oil
50
52
52
49
45
supplies for the U.S.
and its allies
Neutralize Iraq's
14
12
13
14
17
growing chemical and
nuclear weapon
capability
Don't know/Refused
8
9
7
10
6
6
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 2 (Con't)
PROSPECTS OF AN "ENERGY CRISIS"
QUESTION: Some people say the Iraq crisis demonstrates the need to
increase our oil supply by opening up domestic oil and
gas exploration off our coasts and in natural wilderness
areas. Others say it makes more sense to reduce our
demand for oil by requiring more fuel efficient cars,
encouraging car pooling and promoting mass transit
alternatives. Which point of view comes closest to your
own opinion of what we ought to do?
Nation Northeast Midwest South West
Increase supply
21
22
19
26
15
Reduce demand
75
75
79
70
78
Don't Know/Refused
4
3
2
4
7
Conservative Mod/Liberal Conservative Mod/Liberal
Republican
Republican
Democrat
Democrat
Increase supply
20
19
31
17
Reduce demand
76
79
65
79
Don't Know/Refused
3
2
3
3
7
Research/Strategy/Management
To provide for energy in the future, six out of ten (59%) of those
surveyed believe emphasis should be given to finding different
energy sources such as solar and wind power. Finding ways to use
less energy is the priority for one out of four persons (25%)
while producing more oil, gas and coal is chosen by one in ten
(11%) as the emphasis for the future of America's energy needs.
Putting each respondent in the role of research and development
budget allocator for the Department of Energy, reinforces the high
priority placed on renewables. Nearly one out of two (47%) give
renewables top priority funding over oil and coal, nuclear energy
and energy conservation. Another three out of ten (28%) mention
it as their number two priority. Following renewables closely in
the public's allocation of energy research dollars, is energy
conservation. Nearly three out of ten (28%) make it their top
priority; while four out of ten (39%) place it second in budget
priority.
The high priority assigned to developing new or renewable sources
of energy in this study is further supported by the two out of
three (69%) who expect renewables will be providing at least some
of our energy needs by the year 2000. One person in four (25%)
expects that renewables can produce enough energy to meet a lot of
our needs by that time.
For more detail on these questions refer to Tables 3 and 4.
GLOBAL WARMING
Awareness of the global warming issue has grown from approximately
six out of ten persons in the first study done in October of 1988
(58%), to eight out of ten persons in November of 1989 (79%), to
nearly nine out of ten persons today (December 1990 - 86%). While
awareness reaches a majority within all subgroups, it does vary
as a function of exposure to print media. More affluent, well-
educated persons have a higher level of awareness than less
affluent, less well-educated persons.
8
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 3
FUTURE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY NEEDS
QUESTION: Think for a minute about the quality of the environment
in which you live. Everything considered, what do you
think the quality of your environment will be like 3
years from now? Will it be better than it is today,
about the same, or not as good as it is today?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Better than today
18
19
17
16
20
About the same
40
45
45
38
33
Not as good
40
34
36
43
46
Don't know/Refused
2
1
2
3
1
QUESTION: In order to help provide for the country's overall need
for energy in the future, which do you think should be
emphasized most?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Finding ways to produce
11
10
12
13
8
more oil, gas & coal
Finding ways to use
25
22
26
25
27
less energy
Finding different energy
59
63
59
55
60
sources such as solar
and wind
Don't know/Not Sure
5
5
4
7
5
QUESTION: When you think about America's energy needs in the
future, what worries you most?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
That it will cost too
23
23
26
24
19
much
There will not be
21
22
15
25
20
enough to go around
That producing it will
26
26
27
23
28
hurt the environment
That national security
24
24
25
24
25
will be threatened
by our dependence on
foreign oil
Don't know/Refused
6
3
8
4
7
9
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 4
ENERGY RESEARCH PRIORITIES
QUESTION: Suppose you were the person responsible for funding
research and development in the Department of Energy.
Four areas want your money for research and development -
- oil and coal, nuclear energy, energy conservation and
solar, wind and other renewable energy sources. Which
of these four would you fund with the MOST money and
which of these four would you fund with THE SECOND MOST
money -- oil and coal, nuclear energy, energy
conservation or solar, wind and other renewable energy
sources?
Mentioned As
Mentioned as
Mentioned as
Top Funding
Second Funding
Last Funding
Priority
Priority
Priority
Oil and Coal
12
14
33
Nuclear
10
15
43
Energy Conservation
28
39
8
Renewables
47
28
9
Don't know/Refused
3
3
7
QUESTION: Think about renewable sources of energy such as solar or
wind power. Can renewable energy sources produce enough
energy to meet a lot of our energy needs, some of our
needs, or only a little of our needs by the year 2000?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
A Lot
25
26
23
25
28
Some
44
43
45
46
40
Little
24
25
24
21
25
Don't know/Refused
7
6
7
8
7
10
Research/Strategy/Management
In our study of November 1989, seven out of ten persons felt that
the United States must take the lead in fighting global warming.
A repeat of this question in the current survey shows no change in
opinion regarding the leadership role of this country. Again seven
out of ten persons believe the U.S. should take the lead in
fighting global warming.
However, some circumstances have changed since the 1989 study. A
number of industrial countries have made unilateral commitments to
limit or reduce the levels of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil
fuels. The current Bush administration position stresses the
uncertainty of scientific predictions of global warming and refuses
to commit to any carbon dioxide limit until there is more evidence.
When presented with the choice to join now with other countries and
make a commitment to lowering carbon dioxide levels from fossil
fuels or wait for more scientific evidence before making such a
commitment, seven out of ten respondents (69%) choose action now.
One out of four (27%) feel we should wait for more scientific
evidence of global warming. The call for action now has a
decidedly ideological tilt to it with fewer conservatives than
moderates/liberals lining up to support it. Still, majorities
within each partisan/ideological group opt to see the U.S. take
action now.
When asked how much more per month they would be willing to pay for
fossil fuels to prevent global warming from having serious
consequences, three persons out of four (77%) indicate a
willingness to pay something. The median amount is nearly eleven
dollars ($10.81).
Table 5 provides more information on each of these questions.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
The need to use energy more efficiently appears to be taken very
seriously by the great majority of Americans (72%). Indeed, eight
out of ten believe they can lower their energy bills by developing
better energy habits or by investing in more energy efficient
techniques and appliances. Among those who anticipate a saving,
the median estimate of the decrease in utility bills is
approximately 9% from developing better energy use habits and 10%
from investing in more energy efficient techniques. The biggest
perceived obstacle to making any changes leading to more efficiency
is how much they cost. Listen to the verbatim comments of a few
of those interviewed:
"Money. When you don't have the money you can't do the
job."
"Cost. If something came along that was more efficient
we couldn't afford it."
11
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 5
GLOBAL WARMING
QUESTION: Have you ever read and/or heard anything about global
warming sometimes called the "greenhouse effect?"
Nation Northeast Midwest South West
Yes
86
89
89
80
91
No
13
11
10
19
9
Don't know/Refused
1
--
1
1
--
QUESTION: Because the U.S. is the largest contributor of global
warming gases, some have argued that the U.S. must take
the lead in fighting global warming. Others have argued
that the U.S. should wait until there is an international
agreement for all nations to move together to fight this
problem. Which of these two positions comes closest to
your own view?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
U.S. should take lead
68
71
67
67
68
U.S. should wait for
27
24
29
27
28
int'l agreement
Don't know/Refused
5
5
4
7
4
12
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 5 (Con't)
GLOBAL WARMING
QUESTION: Because of their concern about global warming, many
industrial countries have recently made commitments to
limit or reduce their amount of carbon dioxide from
fossil fuels released into the air. The Bush
Administration believes that scientific predictions of
global warming are too uncertain and refuses to commit
the U.S. to any such carbon dioxide limit. Do you
believe the U.S. should join other industrial countries
in committing to carbon dioxide emissions limits, or
should we wait for greater scientific certainty before
making such a commitment?
Nation Northeast Midwest South West
Join other countries
69
75
68
66
71
Wait for more evidence
26
22
27
29
26
Don't know/Refused
4
3
5
5
4
Conservative Mod/Liberal Conservative Mod/Liberal
Republican
Republican
Democrat
Democrat
Join other
countries
65
72
69
79
Wait for more
evidence
29
26
29
18
Don't know/
Refused
6
2
2
2
QUESTION: Now suppose the price you pay for fossil fuels like coal,
oil and natural gas had to go up to prevent global
warming from having serious consequences, what is the
maximum additional monthly cost you would be willing to
pay:
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Nothing
15
12
16
15
16
Less than $5 more
20
20
19
24
15
$5-$15 more
29
28
31
27
33
$15-$30 more
14
12
15
15
13
More than $30
14
20
14
10
15
Don't know/Refused
8
8
6
9
9
13
Research/Strategy/Management
Cost is followed closely by lack of incentive or just being too
lazy to get it done:
"We could probably be more efficient in what we use
already except that old habits are hard to break."
"I'd say probably convenience; it's just what's available
now is very easy, things like my TV and stereo."
"Just resistent to change. I could wear more clothes and
turn down the heat but I don't want to."
On another topic related to energy efficiency, two out of three
persons (66%) accept the view that using the electricity we have
more efficiently could make it unnecessary to build new power
plants in order to meet increased demand. Three out of ten (28%)
disagree and would opt for constructing new power plants to satisfy
demand.
Based on respondent experience with their electric power companies,
these organizations are rated above average for promoting energy
efficiency. A plurality of all persons, more than four out of ten
(42%), give their electric utility companies above average marks.
Only one in five (22%) believe performance has been sub-par.
Greater detail on the above topics may be found in Tables 6 and 7.
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
Public reaction to nineteen energy policy alternatives sharply
contrasts the most and least favored options for a national energy
agenda.
Among the most popular of the alternatives focuses on increasing
the federal fuel economy standard for auto companies to 40 miles
to the gallon by the year 2000. More than eight out of ten persons
(84%) support this policy change -- six out of ten (63%) strongly
favor such action. Among those supporting the higher fuel economy
standard, nine out of ten (89%) claim they would still support it
even if a new car would cost the buyer $500 more.
Majorities (53% in each case) also reject the statements that
Detroit auto makers are doing their best to develop and sell to
their customers fuel efficient cars that get more miles to the
gallon than the present standard.
Five additional alternative policies are both widely popular
(favored by more than eight out of ten persons) and strongly
supported (intensity ratio of strongly favor to strongly oppose
plus six or greater).
14
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 6
PERCEPTIONS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY
QUESTION: From what you have heard or read, how serious is the need
to use energy more efficiently?
Nation Northeast Midwest South West
Very serious
72
73
66
75
75
Somewhat serious
25
23
30
22
24
Not serious
2
3
2
2
1
Don't know/Refused
1
1
2
1
I
QUESTION: How much to do you think you could reduce your energy
bill by developing better habits that you would be
willing to do now?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Not at all
11
11
10
11
14
1-4%
26
27
29
27
19
5-9%
19
18
19
16
25
10-14%
18
20
17
16
19
15% or more
22
21
20
25
19
Don't know/Refused
4
4
4
4
4
QUESTION: And how much do you think that you could reduce your
energy bill by investing in more energy efficient
techniques?
Nation Northeast Midwest South West
Not at all
16
13
16
17
16
1-10%
42
41
47
37
45
11-20%
20
18
18
21
21
21-30%
9
8
9
11
7
More than 30%
8
13
6
8
6
Don't know/Refused
5
7
4
6
5
15
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 6 (Con't)
PERCEPTIONS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY
QUESTION: What are some of the things preventing you from making
the changes leading to more efficient use of energy?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Doing all I can do now
34
34
36
32
35
Cost too much
29
32
29
28
27
Too lazy/Habit/Just
16
15
14
17
18
not convenient
High cost of home
15
14
16
14
14
improvements
Renting/Don't own home
8
8
6
8
9
Lack of knowledge
5
6
5
4
5
Can't car pool/Need
3
3
3
3
2
mass transit
Can't afford fuel
2
2
2
1
2
efficient car
Lack of time
2
2
2
2
2
Energy efficient
2
1
3
-
2
products not
available
Americans need to
2
1
1
2
1
commit to energy
conservation
16
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 7
ELECTRICAL POWER
QUESTION: Some say new power plants must be built in the next
several years to meet increased demand or we will have
power shortages in many places. Others say that using
the electricity we have more efficiently could make it
unnecessary to build new power plants. Which point of
view is closest to your own?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Build new power plants
28
28
26
31
28
More efficient use of
66
65
69
63
67
electricity
Don't know/Refused
6
7
5
6
5
QUESTION: From your own experience, do you think your electric
utility company is doing an excellent, above average,
below average or poor job in promoting energy efficiency?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Excellent
13
12
8
15
16
Above average
29
28
31
28
28
Average (Do not read)
34
33
36
33
31
Below average
11
9
10
11
13
Poor
11
12
11
11
9
Don't know/Refused
3
5
3
2
3
17
Research/Strategy/Management
The five policy options are:
*
Requiring new homes financed by FHA and VA mortgages to
meet federal standards for energy efficiency;
*
Providing incentives to use or develop alternative fuels,
such as fuels produced from grains;
*
Re-establishing federal tax credits for consumers who use
renewable energy sources such as solar or wind power;
*
Requiring federal and state regulators to provide
incentives to utilities for investing in energy
efficiency improvements in their customers' homes and
buildings.
*
Providing a tax rebate for new cars that get better
mileage than the federal standard.
At the other extreme, opposition to "Adding a federal gas tax of
$.50 per gallon phased in over several years and earmarked for an
environmental trust fund" and "Building more nuclear power plants
in the United States" runs both wide (more than six out of ten
oppose) and deep (intensity ratio of nearly four to one in strong
opposition).
Strong opposition to the $.50 per gallon gas tax relaxes to
moderate support for a $.10 per gallon federal gas tax. A majority
of persons (56%) favor adding a federal gas tax of $.10 per gallon
earmarked for an environmental trust fund. However, the intensity
ratio of 1.0 suggests an equal balance of strong opposition and
support for such action.
Energy policy alternatives associated with the possibility of
environmental damage drives opposition to exceptionally high
levels. More than seven out of ten people oppose (approximately
half strongly oppose) the following options:
*
Developing oil reserves on publicly-owned wilderness
lands, even if this caused some environmental damage;
*
Opening more off-shore areas along both coasts to oil
drilling, even if this caused some environmental damage;
*
Increasing use of coal even if this caused some
environmental damage.
Tables 8, 9 and 10 provide additional information on the full range
of energy policy alternatives tested.
18
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 8
FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS AND PUBLIC OPINION
QUESTION: Federal fuel economy standards require that auto
companies produce cars that, on average, get 27.5 miles
per gallon. Would you favor or oppose an increase in
federal fuel economy standards for auto companies
requiring that cars, on average, get 40 miles to the
gallon by the year 2000?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Strongly favor
63
63
61
61
68
Somewhat favor
21
23
22
23
14
Somewhat oppose
7
7
9
5
10
Strongly oppose
6
4
6
6
6
Don't know/Refused
3
3
2
5
2
QUESTION: Would you still favor this proposal if you knew that a
new car would cost the buyer $500 more?
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Yes, still favor
89
90
90
89
87
No, change mind
9
9
9
10
10
Don't know/Refused
2
1
1
1
2
QUESTION: "Detroit auto makers are doing their best to develop fuel
efficient cars that get more miles to the gallon than the
current federal standard of 27.5."
Nation Northeast Midwest South West
Strongly agree
13
10
13
15
13
Somewhat agree
26
25
26
26
27
Somewhat disagree
20
20
19
20
18
Strongly disagree
33
36
36
30
32
Don't know/Refused
8
9
6
8
10
QUESTION: "Detroit auto makers are doing their best to sell
customers fuel efficient cars that get more miles to the
gallon than the current federal standard of 27.5."
Nation
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Strongly agree
14
13
13
14
15
Somewhat agree
24
22
23
29
19
Somewhat disagree
21
22
22
20
21
Strongly disagree
32
32
34
29
33
Don't know/Refused
9
11
8
7
11
19
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 9
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: OIL AND GAS POLICY ALTERNATIVES
(Ranked from Most Favored to Least Favored)
STRNG SMWHT SMWHT STRNG DON'T INTEN.
RANK
QUESTION
FAVOR
FAVOR
OPPOSE
OPPOSE
KNOW
1
Providing incentives to
65
24
5
3
3
21.7
use or develop alterna-
tive fuels such as fuels
produced from grains.
2
Increasing
63
21
7
6
3
10.5
federal fuel economy
standards for auto
companies requiring that
cars, on average, get
40 mpg by the year 2000.
3
Providing a tax rebate
52
30
8
8
2
6.5
for new cars that get
better mileage than the
federal standard.
4
Providing a cash benefit
34
38
11
14
3
2.4
for scrapping older,
less fuel efficient cars.
5
Adding a tax penalty on
39
23
14
21
3
1.9
new cars getting fewer
miles to the gallon than
the federal standard.
6
Adding a federal gas tax 23
33
17
24
3
1.0
of $.10 per gallon ear-
marked for an environmental
trust fund.
7
Imposing a tax on all
21
29
21
25
4
.8
crude oil imported into
/
the U.S.
20
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 9 (Con't)
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: OIL AND GAS POLICY ALTERNATIVES
(Ranked from Most Favored to Least Favored)
STRNG SMWHT SMWHT STRNG DON'T INTEN.
RANK
QUESTION
FAVOR
FAVOR
OPPOSE
OPPOSE
KNOW
8
Providing tax breaks to
17
33
17
29
3
.6
oil companies for the
exploration and develop-
ment of new oil and
natural gas wells.
9
Accelerating oil develop- 18
29
17
29
7
.6
ment in the wilderness
areas of Alaska's North
Slope.
10
Adding a federal gas tax 12
25
18
42
2
.3
of $.50 per gallon phased
in over several years and
earmarked for an environ-
mental trust fund.
11
Opening more off-shore
8
17
21
51
2
.2
areas along both coasts
to oil drilling, even if
this caused some
environmental damage.
12
Developing oil reserves
5
14
21
58
2
.1
on publicly owned
wilderness lands, even
if this caused some
environmental damage.
21
Research/Strategy/Management
TABLE 10
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: OTHER POLICY ALTERNATIVES
(Ranked from Most Favored to Least Favored)
STRNG
SMWHT
SMWHT
STRNG
DON'T
INTEN.
RANK
QUESTION
FAVOR
FAVOR
OPPOSE
OPPOSE
KNOW
1
Requiring new homes
68
23
4
4
1
17.0
financed by FHA & VA
mortgages to meet
federal standards for
energy efficiency.
2
Re-establishing feder-
54
32
7
6
2
9.0
al tax credits for
consumers who use re-
newable energy sources
such as solar or wind
power.
3
Requiring federal and
51
35
6
5
3
10.2
state regulators to
provide incentives to
utilities for investing
in energy efficiency
improvements in their
customers homes and
buildings.
4
Expanding federal
47
33
8
9
3
5.2
spending on mass public
transportation systems
such as buses and
subways.
5
Providing federal funds
43
31
11
13
2
3.3
to encourage car
pooling.
6
Building more
12
20
20
42
5
.3
nuclear power plants in
the United States.
7
Increasing use of coal
7
17
29
45
2
.2
even if this caused
some environmental
damage.
22
Research/Strategy/Management
SUMMARY
With anxiety fueled by a recession at home and the threat of war
abroad, Americans end the first year of the new decade on a
pessimistic note. The confrontation with Iraq over the future of
Kuwait and the perception that this confrontation is a response to
a threatened foreign oil supply, help produce the concern that the
U.S. is, even now, entering a period of energy crisis not unlike
the one experienced in the 1970's.
Along with that concern comes strong public opinion support for
steps that will save gasoline:
*
Federal fuel standards that require 40 mpg by the
year 2000;
*
The development of alternative fuels from grains;
*
Tax rebates on new cars that exceed the current
federal fuel standards.
Public opinion is equally as strong in support of steps that will
provide for our long-term energy needs without damaging the
environment:
*
Developing energy from renewable sources;
*
Avoiding drilling in wilderness areas and off-shore
sites where environmental damage is likely;
*
Placing more emphasis on energy efficiency -- saving
what we have -- rather than increasing exploration
and development.
Public opinion will not dictate policy -- nor should it. But
public support or opposition to possible alternative policy choices
must be considered as part of the process by planners and decision-
makers crafting a national energy policy.
23
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 11, 1991
FOR:
JOHN KELLER
FROM: ED ROGERS
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
XXX FYI
Kathy Super has the original request.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 11, 1991
FOR:
KATHY SUPER
FROM: ED ROGERS
XX
Action - all yours
Your Comment
Let's Talk
FYI
I've sent a copy to John Keller.
AMERICAN
EXPRESS
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
AMERICAN EXPRESS TOWER, WORLD FINANCIAL CENTER. NEW YORK. NY 10285-5100
JAMES D. ROBINSON, III
CHAIRMAN
January 7, 1991
Dear Mr. President:
New economic studies show that travel and tourism is a major
economic force and a key generator of jobs, taxes, and gross national
product for many countries. At $2 trillion, travel and tourism is the
world's largest industry employing more than 101 million people
around the globe. Still, the industry is often overlooked when
decision-makers are developing important national economic and
social policies.
To address these problems, the chief executive officers of the world's
largest travel and tourism companies recently created a new
coalition called the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC).
The WTTC is holding its second annual meeting this spring, in
Washington, D.C. this time. We would be honored if you would be
able to address the group at any point during the meeting. From
our standpoint, the best time would be at lunch on Monday, April 8.
Of course, we would be privileged indeed if you are able to stay for
lunch. The members would welcome your thoughts on any priority
of your choosing. Certainly, any views you might care to make on
the importance of travel and tourism to the United States and your
insights on ways we can face the economic challenges that lie ahead
would be particularly important.
For your consideration, I have enclosed the proposed agenda for the
meeting, and background on the WTTC. We would be pleased to
work with your advisors in any way possible to handle
arrangements and preparations for your visit.
Linda joins me in sending you and Barbara best wishes for a happy
and healthy New Year.
Most respectfully,
for
The Honorable George Bush
President of the United States
bcc G. Lipman
The White House
T. Zanzotto
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
S. Richardson
Washington, DC 20500
S. Susman
AMERICAN
EXPRESS
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
AMERICAN EXPRESS TOWER, WORLD FINANCIAL CENTER, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10285-5100
JAMES D. ROBINSON, III
CHAIRMAN
January 7, 1991
Dear John:
I am enclosing a copy of a letter I have sent to President Bush
inviting him to speak to the World Travel & Tourism Council
(WTTC), at our annual meeting which will be held in Washington,
D.C., April 7- - 9, 1991. The President is asked to deliver the
meeting's keynote address at lunch on April 8. We would, of course,
try to accommodate his schedule in any way possible at other times
during the meeting.
There are a few points regarding this meeting that I would like to
mention, for your information:
In the U.S., travel and tourism is a $160 billion dollar
industry and growing. It is our single largest export and
is expected to produce a $5 billion trade surplus in 1990.
By showing his support for travel and tourism, the
President would be sending an important, positive
economic message.
The WTTC is the only global coalition with CEO-level
representation that brings together the full breadth of the
travel and tourism industry. The members are business
leaders in their respective countries and, in some cases,
around the world. The global nature of the WTTC, makes
it an ideal audience to receive some of the President's key
foreign policy messages.
../..
John Sununu
January 7, 1991
If it is helpful, we would be delighted to visit the White House
rather than ask the President to travel elsewhere in the City.
I would greatly appreciate any assistance you could provide in
arranging for the President's participation in this event. If you need
any additional information or would like to discuss this personally,
please give me a call.
Best wishes for a happy and healthy New Year.
Sincerely,
Jan
The Honorable John H. Sununu
Chief of Staff
Executive Office of the President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
bcc: G. Lipman
T. Zanzotto
S. Richardson
S. Susman
World
PRELIMINARY AGENDA
Travel
&
1991 ANNUAL MEETING
Tourism
Council
Sunday, April 7
4:00 - 6:00 PM
Executive Committee meeting
7:00 PM
Cocktails
8:00 PM
Dinner
Monday, April 8
8:30 AM
Chairman's Report
James D. Robinson III
9:00 - 10:00 AM
World Overview: Economic and Political
Changes
Peter Jennings*
10:00 - 10:15 AM
Break
10:15 - 11:15 AM
Global Tourism Development
Speaker or two-member panel
11:15 - 11:45 AM
WTTC Global Policy Development
11:45 AM - 12:15 PM
Break
12:15 - 2:00 PM
Lunch
President George Bush*
Keynote Address: Travel and Tourism's Role in
the Economy
2:00 - 3:00 PM
The International Travel Market
Asia: Robert H. Burns
Europe:
Sir Colin Marshall/Paul Dubrule
The Americas: Robert L. Crandall
3:00 - 3:15 PM
Break
3:15 - 3:30 PM
International Travelers in the American
Economy (video)
3:30 - 4:30 PM
Tourism/Transportation in the U.S.
Speaker or two-member panel
4:30 - 5:30 PM
WTTC U.S. Policy Development
8:00 PM
Gala
- 2 - -
Tuesday, April 9
9:00 - 9:30 AM
Presentation of WTTC Business Plan, Action
Agenda and Research
Geoffrey Lipman
9:30 - 9:50 AM
Membership Discussion
9:50 - 10:20 AM
Tourism Message in the Major Media
Tom Johnson, CNN*
10:20 - 10:40 AM
Break
10:40 - 11:15 AM
The Future of Tourism: Innovation in Travel
11:15 AM - 12:00 PM
Issues Round-Up
12:00 - 1:00 PM
Press Conference
Executive Committee
* To be invited
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 10, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR HENSON MOORE
FROM:
ED ROGERS ZR.
SUBJECT:
BRUCE ZANCA
I have it on good authority that Bruce Zanca is coming over to
see you next week.
I want you to know that Bruce comes highly recommended. He's
well-known as a sincere, honest, capable worker; he's cut a wide
path for himself here at the White House.
I've known Bruce personally for 10 years - he was a trainee of
mine way back during Advance days.
In short, Bruce would be a credit to any organization, and I know
he would be a strong member of your team.
Please feel free to call me, as I welcome any questions you may
have.
Thanks.
!
FOR:
THE WHITE HOUSE
FYY X X X
Let's Talk
Your Comment
Action
FROM: ED ROGERS
WASHINGTON
Date: January 10, 1991
MICHAEL BOSKIN
Date: January 10, 1991
THE WHITE HOUSE
ROGER PORTER
FOR:
WASHINGTON
FROM: ED ROGERS
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
XXIX FYI
Frank P. Doyle
General Electric Company
Senior Vice President
3135 Easton Turnpike, Fairfield, CT 06431
203 373-2587
January 8, 1991
Mr. Edward M. Rogers
Deputy Assistant to the President and
Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Rogers:
I am writing to strongly urge that the Administration sustain the turnaround
in U.S. export finance as the FY'92 budget requests are finalized. With exports
performing strongly in an otherwise recessionary environment, the need to further
strengthen the Exim Bank's direct loan and guarantee programs has never been
more crucial or urgent.
As you know, the appropriation for the Exim direct loan program was
increased in FY'91 for the first time in nearly a decade. That positive turnaround
was caused, I believe, by several interlocking factors:
First, the recognition of substantial small and medium business participation
in the program, either directly or indirectly as subcontractors.
Second, the productivity and cost-competitiveness gains of U.S. industry
across the Eighties that allow us to compete more effectively on quality and
price (while often still losing in the face of superior credit terms offered by our
competitors.)
Third, the emergence of substantial capital goods export opportunities for
U.S. companies to export capital goods to the reforming economies of
Eastern Europe and to the recovering economies of Latin American.
Finally, the need to boost exports in order to avert a recession became a
compelling argument in the second half of 1990.
Mr. Edward M. Rogers
- 2 -
January 8, 1991
Although each of these arguments proved persuasive with Congress last
year, the last point is the most critical in our view right now. The recent
Commerce Department report points out that U.S. exports grew by 7% or $25
billion in the first 10 months of 1990, while accounting for about 70% of total U.S.
economic growth during the first three-quarters of the year. The report projects
stronger economic growth in Europe and Asia in 1991 than in the U.S., along with
expanding export opportunities for U.S. firms. Although much of this growth will
come in countries not eligible for Exim participation, substantial opportunities for
American manufacturing exporters are expected in the developing markets that
are eligible and where our trade competitors offer aggressive financing support.
I know that the Administration will want to present the most powerful
recession-fighting and export-promoting set of budget requests it can next month.
That can be accomplished by establishing a net outlay budget for the Bank
(under the new credit reform proposals) which will allow a further increase above
the current $750 million in combined Exim direct loan and war chest authority.
Authority of $1 billion should be requested for that function in FY'92, along with
guarantees and insurance authority at least equal to the $10.6 billion
appropriation for FY'91.
I urge you and the Administration to take the lead on behalf of U.S. export
growth right now when the nation's economy needs that growth most.
Sincerely,
26mg Frank P. Doyle
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 10, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
ED ROGERS zeR R
SUBJECT:
JOHN SEYMOUR PHOTO-OP/MEETING
FYI, during your session with John Seymour this morning, he will
probably make the following requests:
O
2 Presidential fundraisers;
O
2 First Lady fundraisers; and
O
a piece of direct mail.
He has already spoken to me about the above. He has been assured
that he would be a big part of our overall political plans once
they're finalized.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 9, 1991
FOR:
DAVID CARNEY
FROM:
ED ROGERS
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
XXX
FYI
FROM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON. D.C.
The Honorable Rhona Charbonneau
Chairman
New Hampshire Republican Party
102 Old Derry Road
Hudson, New Hampshire 03051
THE PRESIDENT
January 7, 1991
Dear Rhona,
Barbara came back
from New Hampshire, all Fired
swearing in. She told we of
up, having enjoyed Judd's
your very supportive wovels
I just want to
thank you very much
indual.
Keep up the good woul.
bcc: Governor Sununu
Ed Rogers
Jan Burmeister
Warnest Regards,
Bridget Montagne
Cy Bl
THE HONORABLE AND MRS. MELDRIM THOMSON (GALE)
Former Governor of New Hampshire
THE HONORABLE AND MRS. WALTER PETERSON (DOROTHY)
Former Governor of New Hampshire
THE HONORABLE AND MRS. LANE DWINNELL (BETTY)
MS. RHONA CHARBONNEAU
Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party
This lads told we she was
all In you.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DATE: January 9, 1991
TO:
SUSAN PORTER ROSE
FROM:
ED ROGERS
The attached is a very worthwhile opportunity.
I think the First Lady should do - assuming
her schedule permits.
Thanks.
CC: David Carney
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TO:
Ed Rocers
FROM:
SUSAN PORTER ROSE
Chief of Staff to Mrs. Bush
456-2957
For Your Information
For Your Action
For Your Files
As Requested
For Your Comments and Suggestions
Let's Discuss
Please Return
Jan - 99
Symington
The Hon. Barry Goldwater
Honorary Chairman
December 14, 1990
Mrs. Barbara Bush
Office of the First Lady
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mrs. Bush:
My wife, Ann, and I are facing a very unusual political
situation. We have been campaigning for a year and a half and won
more votes than our opponent on November 6th. But it's not over
yet. Because of Arizona law, we're in a runoff election which will
be held February 26th. Our November 6th win overturned the
expectations of all the experts and we are now capitalizing on the
momentum we've garnered.
While we're not sure exactly how this unique election will
work, we are committed to continuing our vigorous campaign
schedule. Just as you had a vigorous campaign schedule for your
husband and were a great asset to him, Ann has won the hearts of
hundreds of voters around the state.
Ann and I would be very grateful if you could schedule a visit
to Arizona and join Ann in some campaign appearances in Phoenix and
Tucson during the last half of January. Ann is a certified teacher
and has a deep interest in some of the same issues you so
successfully promote. I'm sure we could include some interesting
stops on your schedule. On the political front, we need to work
hard to increase our percentage of the women's vote, and to do so
we are planning some special events for women. If your schedule
permits you to visit Arizona, we will schedule a conference of
women leaders of Arizona and will be pleased to have you address
them.
Post Office Box 16347
Phoenix, Arizona 85011-6347
602-468-1990
Paid for by the Symington '90 Committee
Letter to Mrs. Barbara Bush
Page 2
It would be a great honor for Ann and me if you will accept
our invitation to join us in Arizona in January. Best wishes to
you and your family from the Symington family.
Sincerely,
F pl
Fife Symington
FS/doc
CC: Ms. Susan Porter-Rose
Ms. Cathy Hutchinson
Mr. David Carney
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 8, 1991
FOR:
GREGG PETERSMEYER
FROM: ED ROGERS
Action - - all yours!
Your Comment
Let's Talk
FYI
THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PEACE CORPS
WASHINGTON
January 3, 1991
MEMORANDUM OF RECORD
TO:
Mr. Edward M. Rogers
Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff
FROM:
Paul D. Coverdell erdell
RE:
Major Private Sector Contribution for Central Europe
In February 1990, the Liberty Bell Foundation of Fort Washington, Pennsylvania,
approached the United States Peace Corps with an idea to help people in need, generate
good will and peace among nations and to stress the importance of democracy and
education within a democracy.
The principal, Mr. Ed Piszek, has visited Poland extensively and discovered the same
government request that Peace Corps had discovered, i.e., a tremendous need for the
instruction of English. Initially, the Liberty Bell Foundation planned to develop an
English-teaching program of its own. However, after hearing the President announce that
the Peace Corps would be entering Central Europe and would be providing volunteer
English teachers in response to the host government's needs, they determined that their
goals and those of the Peace Corps were similar and could be better reached through
support of Peace Corps programs already in existence. As the Polish need for English
instructors far surpasses the number that have already been sent by the Peace Corps, the
Foundation plans to augment those numbers. In June 1990, the Peace Corps sent sixty
Volunteers to Poland and another sixty to Hungary. In November, the Liberty Bell
Foundation determined that the need was so great and so immediate for this program that
they have donated $1.2 million for an additional sixty Volunteers to be trained, staffed and
placed by September of 1991. This long term commitment and donation is precedent
setting for the Peace Corps. It is the first time that the Peace Corps has had augmented
funding from the private sector to increase its Volunteer levels over its thirty year history.
In the past, Peace Corps has received support from the private sector so that Volunteers
could construct schools, clinics, etc. It has also received in-kind gifts over the years
computers, seeds, health products. It has never received funding to allow it to increase the
number of American volunteers who could go overseas to meet important needs. Hence,
this is a first, and obviously a very significant first. The Liberty Bell Foundation plans to
ask others in the private sector to join them in this mission, calling on individuals,
foundations, corporations and associations. They have a goal of raising $12 million, so
that the program can be replicated throughout Central and Eastern Europe and then on to
Africa, Asia, or wherever English literacy is desired. Because this donation is so
precedent-setting and deals with the President's call for citizens to be of assistance in
Central Europe, we hope you would agree that it meets the criteria for a point of light and
that you could consider a request that the President participate in acknowledging this point
of light at the White House.
I look forward to responding to any questions you may have regarding this breakthrough.
Currently we are anticipating announcing this contribution in Washington, New York,
Philadelphia and Chicago on January 8, 1991. We would be more than pleased to alter the
timing of the Washington announcement to fit the White House schedule if desired.
THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PEACE CORPS
WASHINGTON
January 3, 1991
The Honorable Andrew L. Lewis
Chairman
Union Pacific Corporation
1170 8th Avenue
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18018
Dear Drew:
Since our meeting at your office on May 2, 1990, to discuss
how to marshal American support for Central European
democracies, much ground has been covered -- much of it in
the direction outlined that day. Knowing the size of the
task, I was elated at the announcement that you would be
Chairman of the Citizens Democracy Corps.
On January 11, you and I are now scheduled to sign a
Memorandum of Agreement to enable the Citizens Democracy
Corps and Peace Corps to work together in Romania. Since the
President's announcement in May, I have looked forward to
building a relationship with CDC, for our goals are similar
and the challenges so great they demand our close
cooperation. The Romania Agreement should be only the
beginning.
On behalf of Peace Corps, I wish to offer any information and
assistance CDC would find useful as you establish your
efforts in Central and Eastern Europe, particularly in
Poland, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.
Our staffs in those nations are available to share ideas and
knowledge with your representatives. At the end of January,
our Central and Eastern European staff members will meet in
Budapest to share their experiences to date and to plan for
the future. The information, ideas and energy of that
conference would benefit any CDC representative who could
attend.
As I read your draft Operations Plan, the guiding principles
are all compatible with Peace Corps' efforts. While
Peace Corps Volunteers serve for two years and your
Volunteers will serve for shorter periods, it may well
develop that CDC Volunteers and assistance will become
catalysts for longer term Peace Corps projects.
Peace Corps itself has an Office of Private Sector Relations,
which responds to the interests of the private sector in
supporting Peace Corps' initiatives. Our programs in Central
and Eastern Europe have prompted the most generous response
in Peace Corps history. For example, The Liberty Bell
Foundation of Pennsylvania has granted us $1,200,000 to
increase the number of our Volunteers in Poland, and it hopes
to do more. We have also recently received new books worth
$1,500,000 to be used in literacy programs. The concern of
the American people for the area of the world CDC will serve
is great, but we both know how much must be done for both our
organizations to channel assistance effectively.
I look forward to seeing you on the 11th and hope you have
enjoyed a happy holiday season.
Sincerely,
Day Paul D. Coverdell
PDC/kh
CC: The Honorable Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Deputy Secretary of State
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 8, 1991
DAVID CARNEY
FOR:
FROM: ED ROGERS
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
XXX FYI
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TO: Ed
FROM:
LAURIE FIRESTONE
Social Secretary to
the White House
x7064
Information
Action
This is unbelienable
Lauice
America's
Political Action Committee
710 Pine Street
Herndon, VA 22070
Board of Directors
CHAIRMAN
James B. Taylor
10 December 1990
Herndon, VA
TREASURER
Michael Boos
Reston, VA
Mr. Walter S. Kiebach
Ronald Pearson
555 Island Drive
Alexandria, VA
Palm Beach, Florida 33480
Ron Robinson
Reston, VA
Dear Mr. Kiebach:
George Bush must go!
That was the overwhelming consensus of a group of
conservative and Republican leaders who met this past
weekend in Easton Maryland.
And I was one of them.
Like me, most members of this group had served in the
Reagan administration and worked very hard to elect George
Bush in 1988.
But now all of us believe he must be challenged in the
Republican primary and removed as the standard bearer of our
party.
For the simple reason that he no longer represents
Republican standards and beliefs.
And because deep in his heart he has contempt for
conservatives.
Mr. Kiebach, do I have to remind you of what George
Bush has done in his two years in office.
George Bush performed one of the biggest betrayals in
American political history when he went back on his pledgee
not to raise taxes.
Mr. Kiebach - Page Two
In doing this he betrayed every one of us who worked
for him and voted for him.
He betrayed the legacy of Ronald Reagan.
What's more, he took away from Republicans the most
important issue that divided us from Democrats in the eyes
of voters.
If George Bush had kept his pledge Republicans would
have gained two or three seats in the Senate instead of
losing one in the recent election.
Instead of losing nine House seats we would have gained
eight to twelve.
George Bush encouraged Congress to sneak through an
outrageous pay raise for itself and the Federal bureaucracy.
He invited terrorist Nelson Mandela to the White House.
He has done nothing to stop the National Endowment for
the Arts (NEA) from spending our tax money on art that
smears our religion and sullies our flag.
He has invited homosexuals to the White House while
keeping conservatives at arms length.
And he and his White House staff of moderates have
decided they can work more easily with the Democrat majority
in Congress than with Republicans.
In fact, Mr. Kiebach, George Bush's White House treats
Republicans like dirt!
For these reasons I believe that George Bush no longer
has a claim on our loyalty as Republicans or conservatives.
This is what the conservative leaders and activists
meeting in Maryland almost unanimously believe.
Mr. Kiebach - Page Three
It was also felt that conservatives should begin now to
find a Republican candidate who will challenge George Bush
in 1992.
There was no agreement on who that candidate might be.
Names mentioned included Pat Buchanan, Bob Dole, Pete
Dupont, Jack Kemp, Alexander Haig and Pat Robertson.
What do you think, Mr. Kiebach?
Do you think we should dump George Bush?
Who do you think should be the candidate?
I'd like your opinion on the enclosed poll.
I'll be frank.
I want Bush out of there.
And my preferences run to Pat Buchanan or Jack Kemp.
In fact I intend to commit America's PAC during the
forthcoming year to dumping George Bush and getting behind a
candidate who will replace him.
I believe it is America's PAC's responsibility as a
conservative group to undertake this task.
Because George Bush seriously undermined our efforts to
elect conservatives in the last election, America's PAC has
a responsibility to see that he does our cause no further
harm.
Mr. Kiebach, if you agree that George Bush should be
replaced, I need your help.
America's PAC will mount its Bush removal campaign in
late December.
Mr. Kiebach Page Four
We will start with a report on the Bush presidency and
how it has betrayed Republican principles.
This report will be issued by America's PAC at a press
conference held in Washington.
After that we will begin the process of informing
conservatives and Republicans on the sins of his
administration and building support for his defeat in the
Republican primary in 1992.
This campaign will require your help.
Will you help me, Mr. Kiebach?
Will you please send America's PAC a contribution of
$250, $100, $75, $50, $35, or $25?
Whatever you send will be used to see that a
conservative replaces George Bush in 1992.
If we are going to save our party and our movement we
must begin now.
If we are ever going to continue the good work that
Ronald Reagan started, I will need your immediate help.
Please let me hear from you today.
JamoB James Sincerely, B. Taylor Jaya
Chairman
P.S.: Don't forget to fill out our Presidential Preference
Poll on the enclosed reply page. Thank you.
10 December 1990
Mr. Walter S. Kiebach
555 Island Drive
Palm Beach, Florida 33480
Dear Mr. Taylor:
To help America's PAC begin the campaign to replace
George Bush I enclose a donation of:
$ 250
$ 50
$ 100
$ 35
$
75
$ 25
Other
Please make check payable to America's PAC
1992 Republican Presidential Poll
Question #1: Do you believe conservatives should work to
replace George Bush in 1992?
Yes
No
Question #2: Mr. Kiebach, please indicate below your choice
of a Republican to replace George Bush in 1992 by putting
the number "1" next to your first choice, the number #2,
next to your second, and so on.
Pat Buchanan
Alexander Haig
Bob Dole
Jack Kemp
Pete Dupont
Pat Robertson
A favorite not listed:
Political contributions are not deductible for income tax
purposes but they are the only way to win elections. PC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DATE: January 7, 1991
TO:
EDE HOLIDAY
FROM:
ED ROGERS
Is Hancock right on this?
Please let me know.
Thanks.
Dec. 21 '90 13:26 9999 HANCOCK LUMBER CASCO
TEL1-207-627-7041
PAGE 02
K. David Hancock
Hancock Lumber Company, Inc.
Chairman
P.O. Box 299 Casco, Maine 04015
Tel. 207-627-4201
December 20, 1990
Ms. Jackie Kennody
Office of the Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
I hope this letter finds you well and enjoying the holiday
scason. I am writing to renew our acquaintance from this past
summer when I talked with you and Covernor Sununu at the
suggestion of John Stabile. I would like to draw your attention
to a newly emerging aspect of the spotted owl issue that we
discussed this summer. You will recall that you and I talked
about the owl issue just before my conversations with Governor
Sununu. You helped me present the industry's views to the
governor most persuasively.
It has recently come to our attention that the proposed U.S.
Forest Service FY 1992 budget request for timber management in
Oregon and Washington will provide for a FY 1992 timber sale
program of 2.6 billion board feet of volume. This is precisely
the amount of volume that could be offered il the Agency is
forced to follow the requirements of the Interagency Scientific
Committee Report (the so called "Thomas Committee" Plan) for the
conservation of the owl. This plan was the subject of
considerable critcism as being "unbalanced", and resulted in the
formation of the President's Task Force on the spotted owl whose
deliberations we followed closely over the summer. The Task
Force indicated that the Thomas plan would not be adopted, and
called upon Congress to work with the Administration to produce a
more balanced proposal.
We hope that the Administration is not now abandoning this view
and accepting the Forest Service FY 1992 budget proposal
currently before the President for approval. Announcing a 2.6
billion board feet timber sale program for FY 1992 as part of the
Administration's budget proposal would have exactly such a
result. I bring this matter to your and Governor Sununu's
attention in the hope that the broader policy implications of
this budget proposal will not be overlooked in the very difficult
struggle over balancing the federal budget (particularly since
timber sales generate revenue). Clearly, there are bigger issues
at stake, including the Administration's stated commitment to
find a balanced solution that preserves both timber jobs and the
spotted owl.
Dec. 21 '90 13:27 9999 HANCOCK LUMBER CASCO
TEL1-207-627-7041
PAGE 03
Ms. Jackie Kennedy
page 2
I appreciate the opportunity to offer you these views. Please
call me if I can be of any assistance in this matter. Best
wishes for the Holiday Season.
Sincerely,
Dave Hancock
K. David Hancock
Chairman
KDH: WSS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 4, 1991
FOR:
EDE HOLIDAY
FROM: ED ROGERS
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
XXX FYI
200315
STEVE GUNDERSON
227 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
30 DISTRICT. WISCONSIN
WASHINGTON. DC 20515-4903
202-225-5506
CHIEF DEPUTY WHIP
TDD ACCESSIBLE
MEMBER:
DISTRICT OFFICE
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
P.O. Box 247
EDUCATION AND LABOR
Congress of the United States
438 NORTH WATER STREET
COMMITTEE
BLACK RIVER FALLS. WI 54615-0247
1-800-472-6612
house of Representatives
715-284-7431
TDD ACCESSIBLE
lashington, DC 20515-4903
TO: John Sununu
ER - INFO
FR: Steve Gunderson
RE: The Labor Agenda for the 102nd Congress
As Bill Ford takes over the leadership of the House Education
and Labor Committee, all signals point to the most aggressive
labor agenda in decades. Organized labor has long waited for his
movement to the top spot in order that they might aggressively
pursue labor's agenda.
The Democratic leadership clearly understands the importance
of the 1992 elections to their future at both the White House and
control of the House of Representatives. They understand it is
supposed to be a realignment election. Accordingly, it is clear
they will strategize to drive a wedge between working class
Americans and the Republican Party. It is especially important
for them that the Reagan Democrats come home in 1992.
Accordingly, we will see class-based fights unlike anything we
have experienced in years, beginning with the millionaires tax.
To their credit, an agenda to pursue these goals did not just
happen. They have been developing it for some time. We are
looking at the most comprehensive, confrontational, and partisan
Labor agenda in decades:
1. The Civil Rights Bill
2.
Strikebreaker Legislation (Labors top priority)
3. Parental Leave
4. Mandated Benefits
5. OSHA Criminal Penalties
6.
Whistleblower Protection
7.
Pension Reform (Visclosky)
plus others.
How do we respond?
The worst possible scenario for us as Republicans is to be
totally on the defensive. Yet, it must be understood by
everyone, they are not interested in compromise and "signable"
legislation. They want confrontation, vetoes by the President,
with numerous votes to sustain the vetoes by House Republicans.
The campaign ads for 1992 will then have been written!
We as Republicans are at our best when we focus on economic
growth and competitiveness. We will be at our second best, if we
can prevent most of these issues from becoming a major item in
the 102nd. And this is possible.
I strongly encourage the President to announce in his State
of the Union address, or soon there-after, the creation of a high
level, bi-partisan, distinguished blue-ribbon Presidential
commission to review and recommend a whole-sale and comprehensive
review of labor law in this country. The purpose of the
commission would be to recommend those changes necessary to
modernize labor law to reflect the dramatic changes in America's
workforce, and global economy that surround us as we enter the
21st century. The magnitude of this review makes it a two-year
commission.
A commission such as this can be justified on its own merits.
They last major modification of labor law in this country was in
1959! However, it has even more merit from a timing and
political perspective. In the midst of an economic slowdown,
combined with the ongoing work of such a commission, we as
Republicans would be able to articulate the need to preclude the
commission's recommendations or to piecemeal labor law revisions.
It is my opinion, that a commission sufficiently distinguished to
give it credibility would allow us to defeat or prevent any of
the above legislation from being considered in this upcoming
session.
I intend to introduce legislation at the beginning of this
session to create such a commission. The only negative from
doing so, is that if it moves, the Democrats will revise it to
insist upon naming some of its members. Thus, an executive
action by the White House allows the Administration to control
the membership and its results.
Any suggestions, comments, or reactions are invited.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 4, 1991
TO:
Nancy Jones
FROM: Mia Kelly
Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff
Roger and Ed have talked about these
phone calls.
Ideally, Roger could participate in
all of them; if not, however, as
many as possible (2?) would be
greatly appreciated!
Please coordinate with Ruth Guimond
at x6623 or x7730.
Thanks!
confrall;
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ER-FYI.
December 31, 1990
Dear ^F1^:
On Monday, January 7 at AR2, I am inviting you to join in a
conference call with: David Demarest - Assistant to the President
for Communications, Roger Porter - Assistant to the President
for Economic and Domestic Policy and myself.
The purpose of this conference call is to allow you the
opportunity to provide us with your thoughts and ideas regarding
the President's upcoming State of the Union address.
Please call Ruth Guimond at 456-6623 as soon as possible with an
accurate phone number to contact you at.
If you have any questions, please do not hesistate to call.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David M. Carney
Special Assistant to the President
and Director, Office of Political Affairs
^F3^
1000 am - Eastern region
1030
- Southern region
200 pm - midwesTern region
230 pm - North+Southwestern regions
FROM: ED ROGERS
GOVERNOR SUNUNU
FOR:
Date: January 3, 1991
WASHINGTON
: WHITE HOUSE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 3. 1991
ROGER PORTER
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 3, 1991
FOR:
FROM: ED ROGERS
ANDY CARD
A: ED ROGERS
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
FYI
XX
X
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
THE WHITE HOUSE
FYI
WASHINGTON
XXX
Date: January 3, 1991
RE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 3, 1991
ent
DAVID CARNEY
ROGERS
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
FYI
FROM: ED
XXX
X
X
FOR:
01/02/91 10:05
ES 714 644 6329
01
To: ED ROGERS
FR: JACK FLANIGAN
202-456-2397
1989 Legislative Handbook
Members of the Senate
37
SEYMOUR, John (R) 35th District,
Orange County. First elected in a
special election, April 1982. Legisla-
tive priorities include education,
transportation, housing and drug
and alcohol abuse. Committees:
Budget and Fiscal Re view' (Vice
Chairman): Education: Housing and
Urban Affairs; Revenue and Taxa.
tion; Transportation. Former Mayor
of Ansheim, past President of California Association of
Realtors, past Presiden: Anaheim Chamber of Com-
merce. Craduate, UCL/I and veteran of the U.S. Marine
Corps. Married to Judy and father of six children.
02
01/02/91 10:05
$ 714 644 6329
(1988 Publication)
JOHN SEYMOUR
ANAHEIM
35TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT
John Seymour was first elected to the 35th Senate District In a special election on
Fountain Senator Seymour serves B constituency of approximately 600,000 people living in the cities April of Costa 18, 1982.
Beach, Valley, Orange, Tustin, Villa Park, and parts of the cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove, Huntington Mesa,
Irvine, Midway City, Newport Beach, Sar to Ane and Westminster.
member of the Revenue & Texation, Transportation end Education Committees.
Senator Seymour serves as Vice Chairman of the Budget & Fiscal Review Committee, and is a
Prior to coming to the Senate, John was electe Mayor of the City of Anaheim in 1978 and served
as taking Mayor his seat Pro-Tem. in the Senate From 1974 to 1978, h: served as & Member of the Anaheim City Council, until and
A graduate of UCLA, John's career progression in the private sector has been that of
who 125 built a broad based real estate brokerage, property management and escrow business an with entrepreneur than
employees. John sold his business In 1981 in order to devote himself full time to public more service.
John is a former member of the Board of Governors of Republican Associates and, the
ranking 1983. Republican in the State Senate, was elected Chairman of the Senate Republican Caucus as on second July 1,
of YMCA, Past President of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, and has served as Chairman of the Board
John is a former President of the California Association of Realtors, a former Director on the Anaheim
Californians for Housing Coalition, and as Co-Chairman of Orange County Citizens for Water.
John is 49, a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, and he and his wife, Judy, have six children.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DATE:
January 3, 1991
TO:
GOVERNOR SUNUNU
EDE HOLIDAY
FROM:
ED ROGERS
This looks good.
Did we know about it?
Suggesting tiered restrictions
REILLY EYES WETLANDS PROTECTION SYSTEM BASED ON RELATIVE ECOLOGICAL VALUE
EPA administrator William Rellly is interested in exploring a "classification" plan which would base the
level of protection afforded a wetland on the value of the ecological system in question. The surprise
pronouncement came in an exclusive Dec. 14 interview with Inside EPA. The classification system, which
designates wetlands according to their value, has been endorsed' by the National League of Cities (Inside
EPA. Dec. 14, pil) and some members of Congress, who are concerned by what they see as EPA's
indiscriminate prosecution of wetlands violators when certain areas are not as valuable as others. The
White House Domestic Policy Council also reportedly is taking an interest in the plan. However,
environmentalists and some of Rellly's own staff believe the classification system exceeds the boundaries of
the agency's scientific expertise and fear it could result in a "writing off" of some key wetlands. Reilly
unabashedly made clear his interest in the plan, however.
Reilly highlighted the wetlands issue as one of his top priorities, calling it a difficult area, because it
touches upon the "intimate relationship" between people and their private property. "My personal sense is
that we need to find a way of applying a 'duck test' to wetlands," to ensure that the agency holds the
line on the most highly productive wetlands, he said. "That probably will result in some kind of a
classification system that identifies a hierarchy of wetlands values." Reilly appreciates the concerns of the
scientific community and understands the need to avoid "writing off" wetlands. But he says EPA's
delineation manual outlining its wetlands policy "invelved some overreaching. It was never our intention to
subject to our jurisdiction 40% of the Eastern Shore or substantial parts of states that had long been
converted to agriculture or considered appropriate for development
and which don't look to
an
ordinary person
like wetlands." The administrator said that the agency has not begun a reclassification
effort, but he feels it is "something that makes sense." He says that many constituencies concerned about
solving the wetlands problem have endorsed a similar type of approach.
Reilly stressed that an ackno wiedgement of the merits of the classification system in no way implies
he is weak on wetlands protection and pointed out that he strongly backed key EPA vetoes of projects
intruding upon wetlands, in particular the Old Cutler Bay project in Florida, the Two Forks dam in
Denver, CO and the beginnings of a veto for a Region II case for the Menlo Park wetlands. However, he
regards the veto as a last resort and feels that if the regulatory system is working properly, a veto should
not be necessary.
An agency source says EPA was recently made aware of the administrator's interest in the issue and
points out that classification is not a new idea, carrying both proponents and foes. The practical problem,
notes this source, is the state of the science and the ability to come up with a broad scheme to apply to
such a diverse universe of wetlands. This source says that EPA has never taken a strong position on the
issue, but acknowledges that "there's a lot we don't know" about the value of wetlands. "We've never said
it's wrong. We've just said we weren't ready to go with it" with the current scientific limitations. The
classification system is one potential response to the criticism being "heaped" on EPA's implementation of
the Clean Water Act section 404 program, this source says. Some states have tried the system and
"sometimes it works, sometimes in doesn't." An environmentalist says the idea is not new, and explains that
it was the focus of much conversation during a wetlands forum where Reilly was a participant. The idea
can work, provided there are safeguards, this source says. "That Reilly is thinking about it and wants to
have debate on it is never a bad idea."
An EPA official stresses that Reilly is interested in avoiding "going after the little guy" and ensuring
that tough actions are taken on premier wetlands. "This is something he's thinking about." One possibility
is to refine the delineation manual to protect wetlands that have the most value. "He is open to
suggestions to ensure that priority wetlands get priority attention," and that EPA does not surrender
resources to give its wetlands program a bad name, this source says. A source with the Water Office says
that there have been no in-depth discussions about the classification approach, but sees merit in examining
the method.
EPA SCRAMBLES TO AVOID SITE CLEANUP ROLLBACKS IN WAKE OF SUPERFUND CUTS
EPA, preparing to implement Congress' significant paring back of the Administration's Superfund
budget request, is grappling with how to avoid cutting the cleanup program. Congress slashed $160-million
from the Administration's $1.74-billion request for fiscal year 1991, though handing the agency $1.6-billion,
representing Superfund's largest budget. The cutback from the Administration's request is forcing EPA to
take a hard look at where it can rell back existing programs. In the past, cuts have been taken in the
remedial cleanup program, but with so many projects moving to the cleanup stage, EPA can ill afford to
INSIDE EPA - December 21, 1990
3
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 2, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
ED ROGERS IR
SUBJECT:
POLITICAL UPDATE
O
State Senator John Seymour is the choice for California's
open Senate seat. By way of background, Seymour is a former
mayor of Anaheim, and was the pro-choice, moderate candidate
who ran against Marian Bergeson for Lieutenant Governor in
the 1990 primary. He's in his early 50s and has made a
great deal of money in the real estate market.
Jack Flanigan describes Seymour as "a political clone of
Pete Wilson".
Initially, conservatives won't be happy.
O
Lee Atwater is not doing well. Although there have been no
dramatic developments with the tumor, or any other medical
problems, his energy is drained and he's extremely fatigued.
He's depressed, inattentive, sad and compulsive.
Dr. Newman says he wouldn't be surprised if Lee died
anytime, but he also will not give any new estimate for
life-expectancy.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 2, 1991
FOR:
DAVID CARNEY
FROM:
ED ROGERS
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
XXX FYI
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
90 DEC 29 AM11: 19
December 28, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
ROGER B. PORTER
RBP
SUBJECT:
State Environmental Ballot Initiatives
Seven states had a total of eleven environmental
initiatives on their ballots this past November. The results
are striking. Of the eleven initiatives, only one measure
passed. Most were decisively defeated. A list of the
initiatives with a brief description of their content, and the
results, is attached.
I have discussed this phenomenon with Bill Reilly and he
concurs that three principal factors contributed to these
results:
1. Many of the environmental ballot initiatives were
extremely complicated and difficult to understand. Many voters
are reluctant to vote for something that has a good deal of
uncertainty associated with it in their minds.
2. More importantly, many of the ballot initiatives were
filled with unreasonable provisions that went well beyond the
idea of balance that you have repeatedly emphasized with
respect to environmental benefits and economic growth.
California's "Big Green" initiative illustrates the point. In
the end, 100 of the 103 major newspapers in California formally
opposed Big Green.
3. Not least, the costs associated with many of these
initiatives were large and visible. Faced with the prospect of
restraints on economic growth and more governmental mandates,
voters resisted schemes that could not credibly make a case
that the benefits exceeded the costs.
Attachment
State Environmental Ballot Initiatives
November 1990
Arizona
Defeated 66% to 34%. Proposition 202, a solid waste measure,
would have authorized a comprehensive recycling plan and
encouraged the use of state land as waste sites.
California
Defeated 63% to 37%. Proposition 128, "Big Green," would have
banned all pesticides with any trace of carcinogens, required a
20 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000 and
a 40 percent cut by 2010 to combat global warming, prohibited
offshore oil drilling less than three miles from shore (except
in national emergencies), ended the use of all chemicals that
affect the ozone layer by 1997, ended private forest
clearcutting, levied a 25 cent-per-barrel tax on oil companies
to pay for an oil spill prevention and cleanup fund, and
created an environmental advocate with the power to enforce all
environmental programs.
Defeated 70% to 30%. Proposition 135 would have increased the
monitoring of pesticide use without an outright ban.
Defeated 53% to 47%. Proposition 130, "Forest Forever," would
have banned clearcutting, and demanded timber replenishing and
state acquisition of old-growth forests.
Missouri
Defeated 75% to 25%. Proposition A, "The Natural Streams Act,"
would have designated 55 bodies of water, tributaries, and the
adjoining land as part of the Natural Streams System. This
would have banned the expansion of business, agriculture,
ranching, and timbering operations on regulated land without
providing any compensation.
Oregon
Defeated 57% to 43%. Measure Number 6, "The Recycling Act of
1990," would have required that all packaging, with certain
exemptions, either be reusable at least five times, be made of
50 percent recycled content, or contain materials being
recycled at least 15 percent in Oregon (with that percentage
increasing over time).
Defeated 59% to 41%. This measure would have shut down the
Trojan Nuclear Power Plant unless a radioactive waste disposal
site was federally licensed and operated, the plant became
"cost efficient," and the plant could withstand major
earthquakes without harm to the public.
-2-
New York
Defeated 51% to 49%. Proposition 1, "The Environmental Quality
Bond Act," would have authorized raising nearly $2 billion in
bond sales for a variety of environmental programs, including
buying land threatened by development. Also, $300 million of
the bonds would have funded municipal recycling programs
statewide.
South Dakota
Passed 53% to 47%. Measure 1 prohibits the large scale siting
or operation of a solid waste facility without legislative
approval. It was made retroactive to January 1, 1989.
Defeated 53% to 47%. Measure 2 would have prohibited surface
or subsurface gold or silver mining operations in the Black
Hills.
Washington
Defeated 75% to 25%. Initiative Measure 547 would have
repealed the existing Growth Management Act with stringent
land-use and growth regulations.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: January 2, 1991
FOR:
ROGER PORTER
FROM: ED ROGERS
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
XXXX FYI
The NFIB Foundation
An Affiliate of
National Federation of
ER - INFO
Independent Business
December 21, 1990
The Honorable John Sununu
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Sununu:
Congressman Don Sundquist asked that I submit a few
suggestions for the Administration's 1991 agenda.
These suggestions reflect my personal views as they
relate to education, economic growth and the
independent sector. I believe the Administration
needs to send a clear and simple message in the
President's 1991 State of the Union Address to
teachers, students, small business owners and their
employees and millions of citizens who care about
their communities.
I recommend the Administration create (1) a National
Teachers Fellowship Program--which encourages
elementary and secondary school teachers to increase
their knowledge by taking summer courses in their
current teaching field, and (2) a National Student
Voucher Program for Postsecondary Education and
Training--which encourages all students to seek
postsecondary choice. education in the field of their
Suite -00
I suggest these two programs, which are directly
600 Maryland Ave. S.W.
aimed at the individual student and teacher, should
Washington. DC 20024
be funded from the current Department of Education
(202) 554-9000
budget. It is time to phase out experimental
grants, which do not enhance meritorious teaching,
and the current student loan and grant program,
which overhead. is saturated by mismanagement and exorbitant
On the economic agenda, consider adopting a Small
Business Recovery Program--which (1) reduces the
FICA tax, (2) increases expensing for small
The Honorable John Sununu
December 21, 1990
Page 2
business, (3) includes a small business investment
tax credit and (4) expands the individual retirement
account program.
We should shift the burden of the less fortunate
from all levels of government to the independent
sector. The Administration should enhance and
expand its Thousand Points of Light program by
establishing (through volunteerism and no federal
funding) model community programs which tap the
resources of the independent sector to address the
problems of food, clothing, shelter and employment
training for those in need. This can be
accomplished by leadership from the President
calling on all Americans to volunteer their skills,
time and other resources to help people in their
communities.
As I assured Don, I am more than willing to fill in
the details for these ideas with you or your staff.
Best Wishes for the New Year,
Dones
David R. Jones
President
CC: The Honorable Don Sundquist
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 2, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR MRS. BUSH
THROUGH:
DEPUTY ASSISTANT sign TO THE PRESIDENT AND
ED ROGERS,
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
DAVID CARNEY
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS
FROM:
BRUCE STEBBINS
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS
SUBJECT:
NEW HAMPSHIRE POLITICAL BRIEFING
1990 ELECTION UPDATE
GOVERNOR: Incumbent Republican Governor Judd Gregg faced
only a modest challenge from former State Democrat Party
Chairman Joe Grandmaison. Despite a lagging state economy,
Gregg defeated Grandmaison, 64%-36%. Gregg will most likely
seek re-election in 1992. (New Hampshire's gubernatorial
race takes place every two years).
Gregg was able to highlight Grandmaison's association with
the Massachusetts Dukakis organization - which served as a
base of fundraising support during the campaign.
Gregg, New Hampshire's George Bush for President Steering
Committee Chairman, had a tough first term. During a
legislative debate over the state's budget, the issue of a
flat tax (sales or state income) came under public
discussion.
U.S. SENATE: First District Republican Congressman Bob
Smith easily defeated former Democrat U.S. Senator John
Durkin in last year's election, 67%-33%. In that race, both
candidates modified their positions on abortion. Smith, a
strong conservative, eased his anti-abortion stance
somewhat, while Durkin moved to support abortion rights.
Smith decided to run for the Senate after Republican Senator
Gordon Humphrey decided to step down and run for a seat in
the State Senate. Smith, who had served New Hampshire's
First Congressional District since 1984, jumped into the
race and handily won a four-way primary in September. In
spite of Smith's record, some party leaders were skeptical
about his chances and were reluctant to sign on with his
campaign.
CONGRESSIONAL RACES
First District: Republican Bill Zeliff, former DuPont
Chemical Company executive and local inn-keeper, defeated
Joe Keefe, a Manchester attorney, 56%-44%. Zeliff, an early
1987 Bush supporter and a friend of John Sununu's, defeated
seven other candidates in the Republican primary - including
State House Speaker Doug Scamman.
Democrat Keefe, having run against Bob Smith in 1988,
enjoyed greater district-wide recognition. He wasn't, and
isn't, however, considered part of the state establishment.
Second District: Democrat and political unknown Dick Swett
upset freshman Republican Congressman Chuck Douglas by a
margin of 53%-47%. Douglas has had a running disagreement
with Nancy Sununu over what values and traditions New
Hampshire should represent. The Swett campaign used this
highly publicized debate to its advantage - - Mrs. Sununu's
quotes were even featured on one of Swett's campaign
pamphlets.
Incidentally, Douglas did not run a good campaign. He
started his effort too late and was rumored to be asking the
Bob Smith for Senate campaign for advice and support.
REAPPORTIONMENT : New Hampshire will not lose any seats
following the 1991 reapportionment.
GENERAL POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE
-
The Bush/Quayle ticket won New Hampshire by a margin of
63%-37% in 1988.
-
The Republicans lost seats in both houses of the state
legislature in the 1990 elections.
In the State Senate, Republicans lost three seats, but
still enjoy a 13-11 margin. During the vote for Senate
President, however, one Republican backed the Democrat
choice. As a result, new Senate President Ed DuPont
was forced to give the Democrats control of 13 of the
24 Senate Committees.
The State House of Representatives, one of the largest
legislative bodies in the world, is controlled by
Republicans, 272-128 - in spite of a six seat loss.