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
120359628
label
Katie McGinty Letters “R”
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120359628
contentType
document
title
Katie McGinty Letters “R”
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
120359628
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg1-049-004-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
034cb82b5097156c
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 Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
[Correspondence]
OA/ID Number:
2885
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Katie McGinty Letters "R"
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
5
9
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 14, 1994
Mr. Joe D. Ratliff
Partner-In-Charge
Baird, Kurtz & Dobson
2500 First Commercial Bldg
Post Office Box 3667
Little Rock, AK 72203
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
This is to let you know that I am in receipt of your letter
dated March 7 to Mack McLarty regarding your thoughts about chip
mills located in the Tennessee River Valley. It was good to hear
from you.
As you know, I share President Clinton's and Vice President
Gore's commitment to the preservation of our environment. I
understand your concerns about the potential environmental
impacts of chip mills on the adjacent rivers, as well as the
impacts of timber harvesting in regions surrounding the mills. I
have notified the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Acting Assistant Secretary of Civil Works of your
thoughts in this matter. I am sure that your concerns will be
given every consideration.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me.
Sincerely,
Ginty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 17, 1994
Mr. Joe D. Ratliff
Partner-in-Charge
Baird, Kurtz & Dobson
2500 First Commercial Bldg
Post Office Box 3667
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
Your recent letter regarding EPA's proposed "Cluster Rules"
concerning pulp and paper mills has been received and your views
noted.
You are not alone in voicing concern over the Cluster Rules, and
I have taken the liberty of forwarding your letter to Katie
McGinty, Director of the Office of Environmental Policy, for
further review. She is working with Administrator Browner to
come up with a fair policy that takes into consideration both the
environmental, as well as the economic, impacts.
Again, thank you for writing and sharing your concerns.
Personally,
mchmon
Mack McLarty
Chief of Staff to the President
MAR 11 1994
1380633
Baird,
Kurtz &
March 7, 1994
Dobson
Mr. Mack McLarty
White House Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. McLarty:
Certified
Public
It is my understanding that the Environmental Protection Agency has recently
Accountants
proposed a set of changes called the "Cluster Rules" to regulations concerning
pulp and paper mills. It is also my understanding that this new set of regulations
would have a significantly negative impact on productivity and profitability for
many of Arkansas' forest products industries - specifically International Paper
Company's mill located in Pine Bluff.
The paper industry has been progressive in adjusting production methods and
expending profits for clean-up or improvements to systems. Their efforts
consistently meet and or exceed the EPA's guidelines for environmental safety
since the passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. In addition, the
American Forrest & Paper Association recently met with EPA Administrator
Carol Browner to present alternatives to the "Cluster Rules" which would
produce the same environmental benefits at a lesser cost to the industry.
Central Arkansas:
2500 First
I am environmentally conscious, however, I feel there must be some compromise
Commercial Bldg.
between stringent environment regulation and simple destruction of an industry
PO Box 3667
Little Rock,
which is so vital to the state's economy and affects so many jobs.
Arkansas 72203
501 372-1040
As a fellow Arkansan, I don't have to tell you what an economic impact stringent
FAX: 501 372-1250
regulation or discontinuing production could do to International Paper Company
200 East Eleventh
and its many Arkansas employees. With the forest products industry employing
PO Box 8306
Pine Bluff,
almost 35,000 Arkansans and producing payrolls in excess of $650 million, this
Arkansas 71611
"Cluster Rules" proposal by the EPA could spell disaster for the paper industry.
501 534-9172
FAX: 501 534-2146
Arkansas' economic situation is seeing improvement, but this group of regulations
124 N. Main
would be an extreme setback toward progress. Please contact Ms. Browner at
PO Box 39
Dumas,
the EPA and encourage the agency to give serious consideration to the paper
Arkansas 71639
industry alternatives to the "Cluster Rules."
501 382-2116
FAX: 501 382-2488
Sincerely,
With Offices in:
Arkansas
Colorado
Kansas
Kentucky
Joe Ratliff)
Missouri
Nebraska
Rartner-in-Charge
Oklahoma
kem/jdr/lmm
Member of
94/P0499
Moores Rowland
International
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 28, 1994
Dr. Edward Radatz
President
Caretakers of the Environment/USA
2216 Schiller Ave.
Wilmette, IL 60091
Dear Dr. Radatz:
I received a letter from Senator Bill Bradley in which he
spoke very highly of your organization, Caretakers of the
Environment/USA. I am pleased to hear of the work you are doing,
and the widespread participation in your organization. I
apologize for the delay in responding.
This Administration has made the restoration and
preservation of the environment one of its top priorities. We
have been working aggressively to bring about changes in
environmental policy. However, we need the help of organizations
such as yours to maintain the momentum.
Environmental awareness, education, and leadership are
crucial to the future success of the environmental movement. I
commend you on your efforts and wish you luck with the joint
conference on Arctic Ecology.
Thank you again for your interest and your work. Please
extend my appreciation to the rest of your group as well.
sjocerely Sincerely, Kathleen A. McGinty Fish
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/mmg
Schedulcing
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
June 24, 1993
The Honorable Robin Renwick
Ambassador
British Embassy
3100 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Dear Mr. Ambassador:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the World Congress on
Urban Growth and the Environment to be held in Hong Kong in early
November, 1994. It was good hearing from you, and I apologize
for the delay in my response.
I appreciate your note concerning my attendance at his
important conference in Hong Kong. Unfortunately, I will not be
able to firmly commit to my attendance at this event at this
time. Be assured that as the event draws closer, I will contact
you regarding the possibility of my participation. I do still
fully intend to continue my role as patron by being an Honorary
Chairman with His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
M Sou
Al Gore
AGJ/avl
June 9, 1994
790 Cragmont Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94708
Dear Mr. Roszak:
Thank you for sending me a copy of the first issue of the
Ecopsychology Newsletter. It was good to hear from you.
As you know, I share President Clinton and Vice President
Gore's committment to the preservation of our environment in a
way that promotes positive human-environment interaction. The
necessity of such relations cannot be overlooked.
Again, thank you for your letter. Best of luck with your
newsletter.
Sincerely,
Katherine A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/MMY
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD
THE ECOPSYCHOLOGY INSTITUTE
Meiklejohn Hall 4039, Hayward, California, 94542-3045
Theodore Roszak, Director
(510) 881-3207 FAX: (510) 525-4220
Mary Gomes, Associate Director
Allen Kanner, Associate Director
June 2, 1994
To: The Assistant to Kathleen McGinty:
From: Theodore Roszak
I realize how very busy Ms. McGinty must be. I also realize that in a busy office, it is easy for a
letter like this to go astray. But Ms McGinty and her staff have been quite generous in the past in
responding to correspondence, so I am taking the liberty of requesting that you do what you can
to let her have a glance at the enclosed journal. She may appreciate being at least peripherally
aware of a movement that is seeking to equip the environmental movement with an
environmentally-based definition of mental health. We see in that effort a valuable new tool for
the defense of ecological values.
Most
California State University, Hayward
Please reply at:
790 Cragmont Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94708
Phone & Fax: 510-525-4220
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD
THE ECOPSYCHOLOGY INSTITUTE
Meiklejohn Hall 4039, Hayward, California, 94542-3045
Theodore Roszak, Director
(510) 881-3207 FAX: (510) 525-4220
Mary Gomes, Associate Director
Allen Kanner, Associate Director
June 2, 1994
Kathleen McGinty
Director of the Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Bldg.
Room 360
Washington, DC 20501.
Dear Ms McGinty:
I am enclosing a copy of the first issue of the Ecopsychology Newsletter. This publication
landmarks the beginning of a national ecopsychology network comprised of environmentalists,
psychologists, and therapists who are seeking to develop a new approach to environmental sanity.
We think of the project as an effort to draw upon the cultural influence of psychology to teach
people their sympathetic bond with the Earth. At one level, that sounds grandly philosophical; at
another it is politically pragmatic in the most immediate way.
One of the principal goals of ecopsychology is to establish an environmentally-based definition
of mental health that might supplement the Endangered Species Act as a tool for defending
environmental values and making policy. Specifically, this would involve amending the
Wilderness Act to include the word "psychological" along with "ecological, geological scientific,
educational, scenic, or historical value" in the definition of "wilderness." When you stop to think
about it, the absence of the word "psychological" in that series is striking. Why isn't it there?
If we are successful in our effort, we may one day hear as much discussion of dysfunctional
environmental relations as we currently hear of dysfunctional family relations. That will represent
a breakthrough in the public's understanding of the true conditions of sanity in our time.
If you have any thoughts on that prospect, I would be grateful to have them.
I hope you find the newsletter of value in your work. I remain indebted to you for bringing my
book The Voice of the Earth to Al Gore's attention when it was published. His cover endorsement
helped ecopsychology to get born as a cause. Perhaps if you have the chance, you might pass a
copy of the newsletter along to him.
With Best Wishes,
Theodore Roszak
Professor of History
California State University, Hayward
Please reply at:
790 Cragmont Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94708
Phone & Fax: 510-525-4220
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 17, 1994
Ms. Susan Roth
Universal Television
100 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608
Dear Ms. Roth:
Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1994. I apologize
for the delay in responding. I very much enjoyed meeting you on
my visit to Los Angeles. I appreciate the time and effort you
put into making our visit to California enjoyable. I will
certainly keep you in mind should I hear of any openings within
the Administration.
Again, thank you for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Katteluna Kathleen Director, A. White McGinty
On Environmental Policy
UNIVERSAL TELEVISION, 100 UNIVERSAL CITY PLAZA, UNIVERSAL CITY, CALIFORNIA 91608, (818) 777-1707
SUSAN ROTH
Director of Publicity
March 24, 1994
Ms. Katie McGinty
Director, Office of Environmental Policy
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Katie:
We met last month when you visited Los Angeles with the Vice
President. I am sure you have not forgotten your VIP tour
of the new 105 freeway when I gave you a lift to your
meeting at LAX!
I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed meeting
you. I also wanted to reiterate my interest in assisting
the White House in recruiting the Hollywood community in
communicating positive environmental messages through movies
and television programming.
You had also offered your assistance in my efforts to join
the Administration.
I have been referred on a few
positions, but for one reason or another, nothing has worked
out so far. As I mentioned, I met with Loretta Ucelli who
was very enthusiastic, but had no openings.
The
environment, as well as the arts or telecommunications has
been my main interest, but I would be interested in any
Administration position where my years of public relations
experience can be useful.
Thank you, Katie, for your time and I will call you shortly.
I hope to see you again soon perhaps I can take you on a
tour of some other Los Angeles freeway the next time you
come out this way!
Sincerely,
Seem
Matt 6
Susan Roth
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 5, 1994
Mayor Edward Rendell
City Hall
Room 215
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Dear Mayor Rendell:
I cordially invite you to speak at the White House Conference on Climate Action
being held on April 21, 1994. President Clinton, in his 1993 Earth Day Speech, committed
the United States to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
To meet this commitment, the federal government is implementing the Climate Change
Action Plan, announced by President Clinton in October, 1993.
The Plan outlines forty-four specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Among them is an initiative to promote municipal solid waste reduction, pollution prevention,
and recycling. Improving solid waste management, in addition to reducing the pressures
associated with disposing of municipal solid waste, has considerable greenhouse gas emission
benefits.
Philadelphia is a key partner with EPA in implementing the pilot for the Jobs Through
Recycling program, under the direction of Mjenzi Traylor, Deputy Director of Commerce.
Because of Philadelphia's experience with EPA in this partnership, you would be the ideal
person to give the Keynote Address at the break-out session entitled "What Makes Recycling
and Source Reduction Essential to Climate Change Efforts". We would like you to discuss
Philadelphia's goals in participating in the Jobs Through Recycling program, and your vision
of potential federal/municipal partnerships to create jobs and improve the environment.
Enclosed, please find two sets of Conference invitations, break-out session agendas,
and conference RSVPs. Please contact Sarah Carney, of EPA, in response to my invitation to
speak. She will be able to answer any questions you may have. Also, let her know if you
need additional Conference invitations. You may contact her at (202) 260-7597. Thank you
for your consideration. I look forward to seeing you at the Conference.
Sincerely
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/mmg
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 22, 1994
Mr. Kyle E. Rossler
Vice President marketing & New Business
Huntsman Packaging Corporation
800 Eagle Gate Tower
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1036
Dear Mr. Rossler:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. it
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither the EPA nor this Administration
has made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Fathleen a.mc Ginty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
HUNTSMAN
PACKAGING
CORPORATION
800 Eagle Gate Tower
Salt Lake City, Utah
84111-1036
phn: 801-321-8200
fax: 801-321-8210
April 5, 1994
Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Asst. to the Pres. and Dir.
Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building
Room 360
17th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty:
It has been brought to our attention that the EPA is seriously considering an environmental
agenda that includes a total and complete ban on the use of chlorine and chlorine compounds
without regard to the risk of such an action. Such an arbitrary approach is unwarranted,
unsupported by science, and highly disruptive to society. In fact, quite frankly, if this agenda
is successful and carried to the worst possible conclusion, it could mean the job loss for millions
of U.S. employees. It has been our contention that good science and common sense tells us that
banning an element like chlorine, that is basic to our natural environment, is nonsense. Taking
it to the extreme--we would stop putting salt in our food and salt on our roads in the winter
simply because it contains chlorine.
We understand that the EPA developed and announced the clean water plan without any prior
notification or input from the chlorine industry. This action disagrees with fair and inclusive
process that our democratic government was founded on and that the Clinton administration has
pledged to follow. As an industry, chlorine is probably one of the most regulated and safest in
North America.
We protest this unilateral action taken by the EPA and encourage you to use your influence to
oversee a fair, democratic process in this important issue. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kyle
Vice President, Marketing &
New Business Development
KER:sb
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 22, 1994
Ms. Stephanie Rowatt
P.O. Box 281
Winthrop, WA 98862
Dear Ms. Rowatt:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
the management of the Tongass National Forest in Southeast
Alaska. It was good to hear from you.
President Clinton and I are committed to the protection of
our valuable natural resources in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. The U.S. Forest Service has
notified the Alaska Lumber and Paper (ALP) that they are in
breach of their contract. The administration is currently
reviewing ALP's proposed recommendations for future operations,
and a final decision will be forthcoming before April 15.
I certainly appreciate learning your views about the Tongass
National Forest and Sitka and the surrounding region's economy.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Mc Genty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Thanks for cancelling KPC's contract. to log the
Tongass National Forest. Please don't be pressured into
revoking this cancellation
Exploitation must be stopped dead in its tracks
thinking in terms of the longrun - peoples and places
if sustainability is to take its place. We need to start
-
will exist long after our limited lifetimes have expired
Lets not be so selfish.
Thanks. Stephanie Rowalt
PO Box 281
Winthrop, Wa 98862
WESTERN PAINTED TURTLE
19
USA
EARTH DAY EVERY DAY
CONSERVE WILDLIFE
866 966.7M AM RENATIVE
05 APR
MLDCR
#DZ
5
© 1993 NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Vice Pres Al Gore
c/o Kahie Mc Ginty
Executive office Bldg Suite 274
Washington DC 20501
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
Name
Dat e
Reter sundlet
3/17/00 Counsel
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 22, 1994
Mr. Vincent A. Romeo
Distribution Manager
Elf Atochem North America
2000 market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3222
Dear Mr. Romeo:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. it
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither the EPA nor this Administration
has made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Father A. mcMinty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
elf atochem
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
2000 Market Street
ATO
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3222
Tel.: 215.587.7000
March 22, 1994
Kathleen McGinty, Deputy Assistant
Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Bldg - Room 360
17th Street & Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20501
SUBJECT: U.S. EPA Proposal to Phaseout Chlorine
Dear Ms. McGinty:
As Distribution Manager of Elf Atochem North America's Agricultural Chemicals Department,
I am writing to express to you my opposition to U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator Browner's recent proposal for development of a plan to "prohibit, reduce or
substitute (for) the use of chlorine" over the next 3 years.
What is especially disturbing about the Administrator Browner's announcement is that it
reflects a continuing pattern that has excluded industry's input into the Agency's public policy-
making process. in the case of chlorine, the Administrator has sought to prejudice the public
policy debate in advance of sound scientific assessment and in the absence of input by all
stakeholders.
By way of background, Elf Atochem North America is a diversified process chemical
manufacturer employing more than 5,200 people nationwide with 33 manufacturing facilities
in 17 U.S. states. The company is headquartered in Philadelphia, PA and reports annual sales
of just under $2 billion. Major product/market segments include: commodity organic and
inorganic chemicals and chemical intermediates; specialty chemicals; agricultural chemicals,
and polymers.
CHLORINE AND CHLORINATED COMPOUNDS ARE ESSENTIAL TO SOCIETY
The EPA proposal makes no sense. The proposed ban represents an unscientific approach to
regulating chemicals because it proposes prohibiting or reducing the use of chlorine and
chlorinated compounds without regard to whether such a significant burden on society is
warranted.
Chlorine and chlorinated compounds are used to meet some of the most essential and vital
needs of modern society, including: protecting our public water supply, and in 85% of all
medicines, 96% of all crop protection chemicals, all vinyl plastics and thousands of other
products (manufactured in the US and marketed globally) that are the basis of modern life.
Approximately 1.3 million US jobs depend on the chlorine industry. Wages and salaries total
more than $30 billion a year. Further, almost 40% of all US jobs and income depend in some
way on chlorine and products of the chlorine industry. Two hundred and twelve industries use
chlorine and related compounds, generating 45 million jobs and $1.6 trillion in economic
activity -- including a $3 billion net trade surplus.
PROCESS FOR EVALUATING & MINIMIZING RISK IS ALREADY UNDERWAY
Scientific experts have concluded that chlorinated compounds span a wide range and should
not be considered as a single group for purposes of risk management. The EPA proposal
would short-circuit such initiatives based on scientific risk assessment, including current
projects relating to a re-assessment of dioxin and chlorine's use in the pulp and paper industry.
With the exception of a few persistent, bioccumulative chlorinated organic chemicals (e.g.
DDT) in localized areas resulting from historical uses, current concentrations of chlorine and
chlorinated compounds have not been shown to cause adverse effects on humans or the
environment. Continuing technological improvements are expected to lower the already low
risks of adverse effects related to chlorine in the environment.
Thank you for your consideration to the points raised in this letter. I hope that upon a careful
review of the implications of the EPA proposal, that this administration will adopt a policy
based on:
Credible science that weighs all the evidence in an even-handed manner,
including an evaluation of potential alternatives.
A fair and balanced process that involves all stakeholders;
Weighs social and economical factors.
Respectfully yours,
Vincent A. Romeo
Distribution Manager
cc:
Mr. Charles A. Kitchen, Director
Government & Community Relations
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
1200 N. Nash Street
Arlington, VA 22209
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 15, 1994
Mr. Leonard E. Robinson
Environmental/Safety Manager
TAMCO
P.O. Box 325
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739-0325
Dear Mr. Leonard:
Thank you for your letter about the
Health, Research and Needs for Ensuring
Environmental Justice Symposium. It was
good to hear from you.
I appreciate your kind words about my
presentation. Environmental justice
issues continue to be one of the
Administration's top priorities.
Again, thank you for writing and for
the information about the LAPD firearms
recycling project.
Sincerely,
Fathleina.Mity
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
TAMCO
Steel
roinson. kam
P.O. BOX 325
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739-0325
February 21, 1994
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
WHITE HOUSE OFFICE
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
725 - 17th Street, NW
Washington D.C. 20503
Dear Ms. McGinty,
I appreciated and took to heart your comments made during the
HEALTH, RESEARCH AND NEEDS FOR ENSURING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
SYMPOSIUM at the Crystal Gateway Marriott. I, for one, realize
that it is not easy to balance the community, industry and the
environment. Environmental "sins of the past" have clouded the
environmental vision of the future.
On a more positive note; on Thursday February 24th, the LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT (LAPD) will be bringing approximately
10,000 confiscated firearms to TAMCO to be melted and recycled
into steel reinforcing bar. Those instruments of pain, suffering
and death will be "environmentally exorcised" into steel rein-
forcing bar, a material symbolizing rebuilding. In addition, the
LAPD has invited the media to witness this event.
Environmentally,
Leonard Robinson
ENVIRONMENTAL/SAFETY MANAGER
LER/ct
(909) 899-0660
FAX: (909) 899-1910 (ADMINISTRATION)
FAX: (909) 899-4293 (SALES)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 6, 1994
Mr. Paul R. Rodriguez
President, CEO
US Solar Roof
7236 NE 171st Lane
Bothell, WA 98011
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
Thank you for writing regarding photovoltaic and European
Union solar energy programs. It was good to hear from you.
As you know, I am dedicated to environmentally sustainable
economic development and support measures to stimulate the
development of PV technologies. I have read your proposals
carefully, and have taken the liberty of sharing them with the
Department of Energy.
This administration recognizes the importance and the need
to address the problem of global warming. "The Climate Change
Action Plan," presented in October, is a detailed strategy for
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the promotion of a
stronger economy. The Action Plan includes 50 initiatives that
cover every sector of our economy. We want to encourage
partnerships with members of the business community in order to
give them better government assistance and promote flexible
approaches to the implementation of a cost-effective emissions
reduction plan. Among other provisions, the detailed plan
focuses on energy efficiency-methane reduction and better forest
management.
In addition, the Action Plan helps lay the groundwork for a
worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to lead to a
healthier environment and economy. Please be assured that this
Administration will continue to monitor actively the
implementation of this plan.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen a.mcssinty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
7236 NE 171s st Lane
U S Solar Roof
Bothell, WA 98011
tel: 206-481-4140
fax: 206-524-0946
Thursday, January 6, 1994
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Office of Environmental Policy
Room 360, Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C.
20500
RE: Economic & Environmental Harmony
Dear Ms. McGinty,
As I understand it, your office is hard at work at building environmental policies
that offer- win-win economic benefits.
How about Photovoltaic (PV) technologies? Clean electricity from the sun.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has a program called "Solar 2000," where
government and the private sector work together to develop and deploy clean
energy systems. This budget year (FY'94) DOE's solar programs are budgeted for
about $252.4 million. By working together on a global scale the DOE has an
opportunity to contribute to industrial growth in the U.S. and contribute to
sustainable development
I would like to share with you a new initiative, developed by the European
Community called "Power For The World," A Global Photovoltaic Action Plan.
Power For The World intends to provide electrical power to more than 1 billion
people over 20 years using solar electric technology. This action plan, currently
funded by the EC, seeks to power about 1 million poor villages in the Less
Developed Countries (LDC) by installing turnkey PV systems.
Page 1 of 3
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Office of Environmental Policy
Page 2 of 3
The EC (now the European Union) plan calls for $60 billion over 20 years ($3
billion/year) to provide electrical power for basic survival services like water
disinfection and supply, health centers, dental care and essential electrical power for
educational TV, refrigerator, insect fighting, and rural telephones. The $3
billion/year is proposed to be spent on a cost sharing bias with the LDC's
contributing about 15% of the total, this helps to assure that equipment is "owned"
and taken care of the local peoples. It should be noted that this proposal represents
only 3% of the yearly over all energy investments in developing countries and less
than 0.5% of current military expenses.
Solar electric systems are the preferred technical option since they are modular,
perfectly reliable and has an omnipresent fuel source: the sun. There are numerous
benefits to both the LDC's and the Industrial Countries. Some of these are listed
below:
Less Developed Countries
Improve living conditions in rural areas
Fight population growth from villages to the megapolis
Reduce excessive demographic expansion by improved local environment
Create new jobs in villages in new technologies
Help preserve the environment and global climate with sustainable development
Industrial Countries
Industrialize PV production
Benefit from the scale effect from PV production some of which are the same to those as the
LDC's such as rural applications and environment protection through sustainable
development
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Office of Environmental Policy
Page 3 of 3
This really is an exciting concept and the Europeans are serious about it. The
Parliamentary Assembly of the EC on 29 March 1993 approved a resolution
requesting an intensification of solar energy development. In it's 1994-1998
planning period, the EC plans on developing all possibilities to further "Power for
the World."
I urge you to establish a partnership with the EU in this program. I offer to you the
following for a contact:
Dr. W. Palz
Commission of the European Communities
Directorate General XII, Renewable Energy Program
Rue Montoyer 75
B-1040 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: (+32) 2.295.69.22
FAX: (+32) 2.296.30.24
Kathleen , if you would like to be remembered by millions around the world for
your contributions to the environment and sustainable growth, please consider this
information and act upon it.
Please contact me directly should you have any questions. And the best of a happy
New Year to you.
Sincerely,
Bul Paul R. Rodriguez
President/CEO
Fax Transmittal Cover Sheet
To: Ms. Kathleen McGinty, - Office of Environmental Policy
From: Paul R. Rodriguez, President/CEO, US Solar Roof Inc.
Fax Number: (206) 524-0946
Date: Thu, Dec 30, 1993 10:58 PM
Transmitting (2) pages, including cover sheet.
If there is difficulty with this transmission, please call: (206) 481-24140
Note:
Kathleen,
Pleas take two minutes to read this important information about technology, jobs,
economic growth, poor people and the enviroment.
Thanks
US Solar Roof Inc. - (206) 524-0946 - Created: Thursday, December 30, 1993 10:54 PM - Page 1 of 2
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Office of Environmental Policy
Page 2 of 2
The benefits are obvious: For the Less Developed Countries (LDC's) electricity for
basic survival like water disinfection and health care; and for the United States and
industrial countries benefits come from the scale of PV production include the
establishment at an intrastructure for the long term generation of electric power
using solar electric technologies.
leurge you to establish a partnership with the EC in this program I offer to you the
following for a contact:
Dr. W. Palz
Commission of the European Communities
Directorate General XII, Renewable Energy Program
Rue Montoyer 75
B-1040 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: (+32) 2.295.69.22
FAX: (+32) 2.296.30.24
Kathleen, if you would like to be remembered by millions around the world for
your contributions to the environment and sustainable growth, please consider this
information and act upon it.
Please contact me directly should you have any questions. And the best of a happy
New Year to you.
Sincerely,
Paul R. Rodriguez
President/CEO
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 6, 1994
Ms. Carol Reynolds
4327 North Post
Spokane, WA 99205
Dear Ms. Reynolds:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts on
sustainable development issues in Ecuador. As always, it was
good to hear from you.
As you know, President Clinton and I are committed to the
protection of our global natural resource base in a manner that
continues to allow sustainable economic growth. I appreciate
learning your insights into the Organization of Indigenous
Peoples of Pastaza and the Atlantic Richfield Company. Since my
return from Ecuador last fall, I have been contacted by and
consulted with a wide variety of interests involved in
sustainable development issues in the Andean region. Rest
assured that I understand your concerns.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me.
Sincerely,
Fathlun Genty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
Tree of Life
Arbre de vie
Spirit Drawing/Oeuvre révélée
To benefit UNICEF
Shaker Community Inc., (at/à Hancock Village) U.S.A.
-
Au profit de l'UNICEF
PM WA 992 WA 992
Greetings 29
USA
Dear Katie McGiuly, I wanted
to be informed that I have just
Post Card
on
28 MAR
1994
written a letter to Mr. Lodwrick
Look, CÉO for the ARCO company
FONDS DES NATIONS UNIES
Ms. Katie McGinty
asking him to resume talks with
The White House
Director Office of Inviornmental Policy
($)
The indigenous community of
Ecuador concerning the environment
in these peoples country Please
UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND
Old Executive office Bldg, Rm 360
Washington, DC 20501
urge Mr. Cook to behave as a
sleward of the earth to protect what
PRINTED
is IN U S.A. left of our rainforests, Sincerely, larol Reynolds
4327 N Post
Spokane, WA 99205
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 6, 1994
Mr. Mark C. Rollwagen
97 Springville Avenue
Amherst, NY 14226
Dear Mr. Rollwagen:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts on
sustainable development issues in Ecuador. As always, it was
good to hear from you.
As you know, President Clinton and I are committed to the
protection of our global natural resource base in a manner that
continues to allow sustainable economic growth. I appreciate
learning your insights into the Organization of Indigenous
Peoples of Pastaza and the Atlantic Richfield Company. Since my
return from Ecuador last fall, I have been contacted by and
consulted with a wide variety of interests involved in
sustainable development issues in the Andean region. Rest
assured that I understand your concerns.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me.
Sincerely,
Fathleen a. sinty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
FEBRUARY 157, 1994
97 SPRINGVILLE AVE.
AMHERST, NY 14226
KA716 MCGINTY
DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF ENVIROMENTAL
POLICY
THE WHITE HOUSE
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
ROOM 360
WASHINGTON, DC
DEAR MS. MCGINTY,
PLEASE
USE YOUR POSITION IN THE U.S. GOVERMENT
TO STOP ARCO'S VIOLATIONS OF INDIGENOUS
PEOPLE'S LAND AND THEIR DESTRUCTION OF
THE ECUADORIAN RAINROREST . PLEASE REFER
YOURSELF 70 THE ENCLOSED PHOTOCOPY. THANK
YOU.
SINCERELY,
Made C. Pollwage
MARK C- ROLLWAGEN
]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1994
Dale Rutter, Ph. D.
Umpqua C. College Chairman
Roseburg, OR 97470
Dear Dr. Rutter:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
President Clinton's Forest Management Plan. It was good to hear
from you.
As you know, President Clinton announced his Forest Plan for
a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment, based on the
analytical work of three working groups established at the Forest
Conference. This administration believes that the Forest Plan is
scientifically-sound and legally responsible and will provide a
sustainable harvest. This plan also includes a new economic
assistance program that helps local workers, businesses and
communities in strengthening the region's economy by creating
family-wage jobs, offering new economic opportunities, and
ensuring the region's long-term economic health.
After receiving over 100,000 comments on the proposed plan,
we are now working to refine it further and expect to submit the
final Record of Decision around March 31st. I appreciate
learning your views on this very important issue.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Failtern a McGunty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
Soda Mountain
Wilderness Council
P.O. Box 512
Ashland, Oregon 97520
President Bill Clinton
RE: PNW Forest Plan
c/o Katy McGinty/Will Stelle
FSEIS-ROD Changes
White House Office of Environmental Policy
Room 360, Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear President Clinton, Reserves must be inviolate!
Thank you for attempting to address the many problems in forest
management that have plagued the Forest Service and BLM in the
Pacific Northwest. We place great trust in your administration
and these agencies to conserve and protect these forests not only
for present and future human generations, but also for hundreds
of forest plant and animal species we did not create and cannot
replace.
Unfortunately, your Final draft for management of spotted owl
forests in Washington, Oregon, and California not only does not
protect spotted owls sufficiently, as required by law, but
neither does it protect salmon, steelhead, and countless other
species the law requires the federal government to protect.
One of the best ways to protect threatened species at the least
cost to the timber industry is to protect all roadless areas
remaining on federal forest land. These are precious refuges of
biodiversity. They have still not been cut because their timber
value per acre is lowest and access to them is most difficult.
Specifically -- please protect key land bridges between
bioregions. A glaring error in your Final document is in the
Siskiyou Pass corridor east of Interstate 5 in Oregon north of
the California border. The Soda Mountain-Pilot Rock ridge needs
"Reserve" status. Every spotted owl study or recovery plan to
date regarded this area as critical connectivity habitat between
the Klamath/Siskiyous and Southern Cascades. Every option but
the politicized "Option 9" put this area in "Reserve. It needs
to be a "Reserve" when the Record of Decision on this very
significant plan is signed.
Please don't gamble with the forests of the present or future --
or the species which depend on them. At least protect all forest
roadless areas. And certainly PUT THE SODA MOUNTAIN-PILOT ROCK-
SISKIYOU PASS CORRIDOR IN RESERVE.
Sincerely,
Name:
Dale Ritter Ph.D,
Dele Ritter
Address:
Umpqua C. College Chairinan! Science
Date: March 10, 1994
City/State/Zip: Roseburg, OR 97470
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1994
Mr. Thomas M. Ray
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
17168 West Jefferson Avenue
Riverview, MI 481992-4270
Dear Mr. Ray:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. it
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither the EPA nor this Administration
has made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Fathlun a. mc Dinty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
elf atochem
ELF ATOCHEM NORTH AMERICA, INC.
ATO
17168 West Jefferson Avenue
Riverview, Michigan 48192-4270
Tel: (313) 285-9200
March 11, 1994
Office Environmental Policy
Deputy Asst. to the Pres., Kathleen McGinty
Old Executive Office Bldg., Room 360
17th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20501
SUBJECT: U.S. EPA Proposal to Phaseout Chlorine
Madam:
As Manager, Environmental Affairs of Elf Atochem North America's
Riverview, Michigan Plant, I am writing to express to you my
opposition to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator Browner's recent proposal for development of a plan
to "prohibit, reduce or substitute (for) the use of chlorine" over
the next 3 years.
What is especially disturbing about the Administrator Browner's
announcement is that it reflects a continuing pattern that has
excluded industry's input into the Agency's public policy-making
process. In the case of chlorine, the Administrator has sought to
prejudice the public policy debate in advance of sound scientific
assessment and in the absence of input by all stakeholders.
By way of background, Elf Atochem North America is a diversified
process chemical manufacturer employing more than 5,200 people
nationwide with 33 manufacturing facilities in 17 U.S. states. The
Company is headquartered in Philadelphia, PA and reports annual
sales of just under $2 billion. Major product/market segments
include: commodity organic and inorganic chemicals and chemical
intermediates; specialty chemicals; agricultural chemicals, and
polymers.
The Riverview, Michigan Plant employs 230 people. The Plant pays
some $12 million annually in direct wages and $1 million in local
taxes.
Chlorine and chlorinated compounds are essential to society.
The EPA proposal makes no sense. The proposed ban represents an
unscientific approach to regulating chemicals because it proposes
prohibiting or reducing the use of chlorine and chlorinated
compounds without regard to whether such a significant burden on
society is warranted.
The
heritage:
PENNALT
and M&T The future: ELF ATOCHEM NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Office Env. Policy, Deputy Assistant
March 11, 1994
to the President, Kathleen McGinty
Page 2
Chlorine and chlorinated compounds are used to meet some of the
most essential and vital needs of modern society, including:
protecting our public water supply, and in 85% of all medicines,
96% of all crop protection chemicals, all vinyl plastics and
thousands of other products (manufactured in the US and marketed
globally) that are the basis of modern life.
Chlorine is vital to the Riverview, Michigan Plant as a primary raw
material.
Approximately 1.3 million US jobs depend on the chlorine industry.
Wages and salaries total more than $30 billion a year. Further,
almost 40% of all US jobs and income depend in some way on chlorine
and products of the chlorine industry. Two hundred and twelve
industries use chlorine and related compounds, generating 45
million jobs and $1.6 trillion in economic activity--including a $3
billion net trade surplus.
A number of employees at our plant have expressed a deep concern
about losing their jobs as a result of this potential ban on
chlorine.
Process for Evaluating and Minimizing Risk is Already Underway.
Scientific experts have concluded that chlorinated compounds span
a wide range and should not be considered as a single group for
purposes of risk assessment. The EPA proposal would short-circuit
such initiatives based on scientific risk assessment, including
current projects relating to a reassessment of dioxin and
chlorine's use in the pulp and paper industry.
With the exception of a few persistent, bioccumulative chlorinated
organic chemicals (e.g., DDT) in localized areas resulting from
historical uses, current concentrations of chlorine and chlorinated
compounds have not been shown to cause adverse effects on humans or
the environment. Continuing technological improvements are
expected to lower the already low risks of adverse effects related
to chlorine in the environment.
Thank you for your consideration of the points raised in this
letter. I hope that, upon a careful review of the implications of
the EPA proposal, that this administration will adopt a policy
based on (1) credible science that weighs all the evidence in an
even-handed manner, including an evaluation of potential
alternatives; (2) a fair and balanced process that involves all
stakeholders; and (3) weighs social and economic factors.
Very Thomas Environmental truly M. Ray, yours, Affairs Manager
CC: Mr. Charles A. Kitchen
Director Government & Community Relations
ELF ATOCHEM NORTH AMERICA, INC.
1200 N. Nash Street
Arlington, VA 22209
Tel. (703) 527-2099
FAX (703) 527-2092
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1994
Mr. Stephen B. Rufenbarger, President
ABC Industries Corporation
P.O. Box 77
Warsaw, IN 46581-0077
Dear Mr. Rufenbarger:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. it
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither the EPA nor this Administration
has made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Fathleen a. mcGinty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
ABC INDUSTRIES, INC.
PO BOX 77
WARSAW, IN 46581-0077 US A
TELEPHONE 219/267-5166
FAX 219/267-2045
March 9, 1994
(11)
LEABC
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director
Office of Environmental Policy
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty:
The recent announcement outlining the U.S. EPA's recommendations for reauthorization of the
Clean Water Act, that included the provision to develop "a national strategy for substituting,
reducing or prohibiting the use of chlorine and chlorinated compounds," has put the future of our
company in very serious jeopardy. It is our belief that "prohibiting" the use of chlorine, and
products that contain chlorine, without justification, will cause irreparable damage to the U.S.
economy and severely diminish U.S. global competitiveness. It is our sincere hope that the ultimate
decisions in this regard will be:
1. Based on sound science that includes an examination of all available
evidence and risk-benefit analysis of chlorine and chlorine-containing
products such as vinyl, and any potential alternatives available.
2. That a fair and balanced approach will be taken to analyzing this problem
and that it will involve all parties that will be affected by its outcome, and
3. That the analysis undertaken will include full consideration of socio-
economic factors for both chlorine and chlorine-containing products such
as vinyl, coupled with a careful review of any possible alternatives that are
available.
The process used to arrive at the chlorine recommendation was unfair; EPA included activists like
Greenpeace in the process, but essentially excluded those who would be immediately affected, or
those individuals who are directly involved in industry using or manufacturing these type of
products. In addition, this unbalanced process reflects a departure from President Clinton's pledge
to run an open, inclusive Administration.
The EPA seems to have a predetermined objective with regard to chlorine and chlorine-containing
products such as vinyl. I strongly urge you to consider the very serious implications of this
strategy, and hope that you will adhere to the importance of sound science and risk assessment,
when considering any recommendations made regarding the use of chlorine.
Page Two
March 9, 1994
Our Company is headquartered in Warsaw, IN, and has additional plant locations in Waynesburg,
PA, Grand Junction, CO, and Wallace, ID. ABC employs 85 people and last year paid wages
totaling $2,275,500.
ABC manufactures 3-ply laminated fabrics, predominately utilizing vinyl calendered films that are
manufactured by other companies. Obviously, chlorine becomes a concern to us.
Interestingly enough, our products are primarily utilized in providing ventilation for underground
mining and tunneling applications. The very purpose of these products is to help eliminate methane
gas and dust from these working environments. The ultimate purpose of the products is to provide
safety to those individuals employed in the mining and tunneling industries. In addition, ABC
manufactures a line of industrial ventilation ducting products; which are again designed to improve
the health and safety of workers in the U.S. and abroad.
ABC does not currently know of any other calendered film product that would provide the qualities
required by the mining/tunneling and industrial firms to which our products are sold. If all chlorine-
related products were actually banned, ABC would be at a loss for manufacturing its products,
which are in fact designed to protect U.S. workers.
I trust that you will give this issue serious attention. At this particular juncture, we can only request
that this entire issue be evaluated logically and that the economic impact to our country be carefully
measured before any final rules/regulations are implemented.
Yours very truly,
ABC INDUSTRIES, INC.
Stephen B. Rufenbarger
Stephen B. Rufenbarger
President
SBR:tw
08mar08
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1994
Mr. William Rankin
Manager, Environmental Services
Olin Chemicals Corporation
P.O. Box 248
1186 Lower River Road
Charleston, TN 37310
Dear Mr. Rankin:
This is to notify you that I am in receipt of your letter to
Robert Boorstin regarding your thoughts about chlorine study and
the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It was good to hear from
you.
Rest assured that neither EPA nor this Administration has
made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
Sincerely,
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Olin
CHEMICALS
P.O. BOX 248, 1186 LOWER RIVER ROAD, CHARLESTON, TN 37310
Phone: (615) 336-4000
February 16, 1994
Special Asst to the Pres for Policy
Coordination, Robert O. Boorstin
Executive Office of the President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Boorstin:
I am writing to request your assistance on an urgent matter that is of great concern to our local plant
here, our state and to Olin Corporation. On February 23rd, the full Senate Committee on the
Environment and Public Works is expected to mark up a version of S.1114, the Water Pollution
Prevention and Control Act. This bill may become the vehicle for potentially harmful language,
ultimately banning the use of chlorine and its compounds a vital chemical for many of Olin's processes
and products. We already have several concerns with the bill, as drafted, but it is the chlorine issue in
particular that prompts this letter.
On February 2, during a news conference on the Clean Water Act Reauthorization, Carol Browner
outlined a policy based on the supposition that, as a class of chemicals, chlorine and all chlorine-based
compounds are harmful to human health and the environment a sentiment long held by some in the
environmental community and one which lacks scientific basis.
Olin will oppose any efforts to prohibit or reduce chlorine use in our products and processes where such
efforts are not supported by sound science. Olin believes that the EPA should base its policies on
science, not supposition. We encourage aggressive, peer-reviewed scientific study of chlorine and its
compounds in a process that includes participation by all vital constituencies. We support the use of
risk assessment and risk management to identify unacceptable risks and prioritize actions to reduce or
eliminate the use of harmful compounds.
We recognize that chlorine is an emerging issue in certain segments of the public. We believe that
some chlorine-based compounds may be a cause of concern, and we fully support efforts to approach
these concerns from a scientific basis.
The policy shift on chlorine regulation announced by EPA on February 2 was not based on scientific
analysis and did not include the input of the vital industries and services that rely on the chemical. This
is wrong. We need your help to encourage your colleagues on the Senate Environment Committee to
influence the debates on reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. We must assure that our
environmental policies are based on sound judgment, reason and science as opposed to emotion and
supposition. In short, we want to participate in the process.
I would be glad to speak with you or your staff on this issue. We are very concerned about EPA's
policies and want to make sure that our concerns are apparent to Environment Committee members
before February 23rd. Thank you very much for your attention to this issue and your continued support.
Sincerely,
Willin C.Rak C.
William C. Rankin
Manager, Environmental Services
WCR\
OLIN CORPORATION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Mr. Jon Raymond
Box 61438
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403
Dear Mr. Raymond:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
President Clinton's Forest Management Plan. It was good to hear
from you.
As you know, President Clinton announced his Forest Plan for
a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment, based on the
analytical work of three working groups established at the Forest
Conference. This Administration believes that the Forest Plan is
scientifically-sound and legally responsible and will provide a
sustainable harvest. This plan also includes a new economic
assistance program that helps local workers, businesses and
communities in strengthening the region's economy by creating
family-wage jobs, offering new economic opportunities, and
ensuring the region's long-term economic health.
After receiving over 100,000 comments on the proposed plan,
we are now working to refine it further and expect to submit it
to the court by the end of March. I appreciate learning your
views on this very important issue.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Kather a. MiDis
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Jon Rayauond
Box 61438, UofO,
Director, OFFICE
Kathleen Mobinty
¿ugene, OR 97403
OF Environmental
Policy. Rm 360,
Old Executive
office Bulding
Washmyton, DC
20501
To: Kathleen McGinty
I support a Zero Cut Policy on
our national Foreset and BLM lands,
By ending commercial logging, we will end
the destruction that is costing us our
clean drinking dollar water, our Fishing industry
(a 1 billion mdustry a year muolves
60,000 jobs), and are tourism mdustry
which is becoming economy more of a cornerstone
to the Northwest than logging is.
Protect our Ancient Forest Reserves
by stopping new logging, sahage logging, and
road building.
to logging growth such as ending
We should old be examining alternatives.
exportst in 1992 the West loast exported more
than 10.2 billion feet of minimelly processed wood
products), Annual Renewable Libers such as Hemp
+ Kenaf and increased recyching t and use of
end commercial logging on Rblic lands
you to take. an eco-systems perspective and
post consumer Fiber. Once again I encourage
<inconelv ton Ravman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1994
Mr. James Reed
P.O. Box 2603
Hailey, ID 83333
Dear Mr. Reed:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your thoughts
about the U.S. Air Force's proposed bombing range in Owyhee
County, Idaho. It was good to hear from you.
As you know, the protection of our nation's valuable natural
resources continues to be one of the Administration's highest
priorities. I appreciate learning your views about the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed bombing range. I have
taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental
Security for review of the specific issues that you raise. I am
sure that your concerns will be given the appropriate
consideration.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me.
Sincerely,
Ratheen Kathleen A. a. McGinty Miby
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
2/8/94
To Whom It May Concern;
Enclosed please find a list of specific concerns regarding the proposed
Bombing range expansion.
I actively support my country in all things that make sense. Taking
millions of acres of public lands out of the hands of the public should
be something that is done only after very careful consideration. It is
your job as our representatives to help us understand these issues,
and to show us why the people of Idaho should make such a
sacrifice.
I would like to mention one other concern that is very close to my
heart. Southern Idaho is faced with more than its share of
environmental concerns, but it is also blessed with many areas that
are unspoiled, and rich with the history of man and woman and
before that. Much of the lands that have been selected for this
Bombing range are those areas that are still wild, filled with
treasures and revelations for the human soul. My family has 4
generations buried in Southern Idaho, with 2 generations still
walking these lands.
The desert here is an elder. Old; dry; fragile; wrinkled; and wise.
Many people of this area feel a responsibility of stewardship to this
land. Please be careful, and conscious with any decisions as large as
this one.
I invite you to come walk this land. I will be your guide. Come hear
for yourself the land speak of the Big picture, and the Sacredness.
You only need to hear these things once, and you will never forget.
BE CAREFUL. PLEASE
Jane James Reed
Sincerely,
Our
P.O.B. 2603
Hailey, Id. 83333
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1994
Mr. Norman Richardson
Member
Washington Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
the management of the Tongass National Forest in southeast
Alaska. It was good to hear from you.
President Clinton and I are committed to the protection of
our valuable natural resources in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. The U.S. Forest Service has
notified the Alaska Lumber and Paper (ALP) that they are in
breach of their contract. The Administration is currently
reviewing ALP's proposed recommendations for future operations,
and a final decision will be forthcoming before April 15.
I certainly appreciate learning your views about the Tongass
National Forest and Sitka and the surrounding region's economy.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me.
Sincerely,
Mibing
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
THE
STATE
OF
OF
DEAN A. LYDIG
WASHINGTON
TERRY KARRO
Chairman
THE
Winthrop
Spokane
1889
JOHN C. MCGLENN
DR. JAMES M. WALTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Bellevue
Vice Chairman
Port Angeles
WASHINGTON WILDLIFE COMMISSION
NORMAN RICHARDSON
Yakima
MITCH JOHNSON
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091
(206) 753-3070
Puyallup
February 7, 1994
Vice President Al Gore
Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building, Room 274
Washington, D.C. 20501
Attn: Katie McGinty
Dear Ms. McGinty,
I have been informed that very soon it is the Clinton Administrations intention to revoke the 50
year Alaska Pulp Corporation's timber contract on the Tongass National Forest in Southwest
Alaska. Alaska Pulp is a foreign owned consortium which broke its contract by shutting down its
pulp mill. Now it is attempting to maintain its lucrative contract while diverting the logs to a far
more profitable sawmill. Alaska Pulp should be given no more special favors in bidding for
timber.
For many years we have tried to get help from previous administrations to no avail, therefore we
are depending on you to:
1) Terminate Alaska Pulp Corp. contract for breach;
2) Refuse to accept any other terms, like another mill.
Your consideration will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Rechardson
Norman Richardson, Member
Washington Wildlife Commission
cc: Jim Lyons
Chuck Clusen
Name
Date
Peter Rundlet
3/17/00 Counsel
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Margaret O. Rizzo
18300 Winter Park Court
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
Dear Ms. Rizzo:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Hatleen a. Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
MARGARET OLIVERI RIZZO
18300 Winter Park Court
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
February 23, 1994
Ms Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy
17th St. & Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Ms McGinty,
I think commercial whaling should be stopped. The Humpback whale
is now threatened, and it should not even be threatened. If we can
stop the commercial whaling, the whales will regain their
population. I hope President Clinton will reconcider his position
on commercial whaling. We need to make sure the whales have a safe
place to live.
Sincerely,
Margaret Oliveri Rizzo
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Rougan
Becky Rougan
2997 Trinity Street
Oceanside, NY 11572
Dear Ms. Rougan and Becky:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Kathleen McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Dear Kathlee Mc gity
2-24-94
the U.S Mannal Protection
d strongly support
the Act & strongly protest in
U.S support Commercial
wholing . The Ocean + all its
are important to
of the planet which t
our environmental protection
president gave was in strong
thought especially our rece
sysport of - We have to
excourage other countries to
support and not us be in reckless this forther
Destruction and misuse of
our natural resources
and Indangered species that
are so valuable to us )
Clease let us look at the
of this
necessary for survival
killing not
thankyou for
your consideration in
reading my views - & hope
words will be put into action
save
wales
savejhaks the
2997 Trinity st
Oceanside NY 11572
Now!
Feb. 24,1994
Dear Kathleen McGinty + Mr. Clinton,
Stop KILLING THE
stop
WHALESII I'm really mad
that the United States supports
the implementation of science-
you support this I don't support
based commercial whating. If
0
you! me and lots,Hots + lots of
people are shocked and furious
about this news. Do you know
whates
of beautiful creatures for no
what your supporting? The killing
reason! Stop!! Crulty to animals !
whales are gracefully, kind
animals, why would you support
the killing of these animals? what
ever happened to saving our
invierment and animals? I know
sometimes they kill the whales
for parts of the body, but there
are substitutes! whales are almost
extincted, use the substitutes. SAVE
THE WHALES!!!!!
P.S.I'm 10
years old +
strongly belive to
From,
Is whales!
save whates
Becky Rougan
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Maia Ramnath
4629 Suset Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46208
Dear Ms. Ramnath:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Fableen a. Mr.8
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
4629 Sunset Are.
Indpls, IN 46708
Feb. 28,1994
Kathleen McGinty , Deputy Asst. to The Pres for Environmental Policy
17th St & Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Ms. McGinty:
I am writing to register my strong
protestation of the Clinton Administration's
position for the resumption of commercial
whaling. This new position is a complete
veversal of the us anti-uhaling stand taken
at last year's Int'l whaling commission meeting.
Please do what you can to prevent renewed
whaling.
Sincerely.
Main Ramnath
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Mr. Walter L. Robbins
282 First Avenue
Laurel Beach
Milford, CT 06460
Dear Mr. Robbins:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Gahlen a. Mosis
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Walter L. Robbins
282 First Avenue
Laurel Beach
Milford, Connecticut 06460
Feb. 26, 1994
Ms. Kathleen Me GiNTy
Deputy AssisTaNT To The President
17 ThST. and PaNNsylvania Ave., N.W.
WashingToN, D.C. 20500
Dear Ms McGiNTy;
we have recently learned That The National
Marine Fisheries Service, with specific instructions
From President CliNToN's administration sTaff, has
announced That The united STates Now supports
The implementation OF science - -based commercial
whating. protest This administration work policy
We iT sTrongly will reverse The painstaking good That From
since been done Toward protecting These mammals movine.
extinction has and main Taining a balance in The
ecology
Sincerely,
Nida Co. Robbins
Walter I. Robbins
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Jean Redinger
7400 River Road
Cleveland, OH 44138
Dear Ms. Redinger:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
RatlenCe.
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Mo Medinty. as the presidents personal
advisor on environmental policy., Jam
distressed and strongly protesticle Clinton
administrations position for the pessumption
of commercial whiling.
Please take my feelings, among many others
like mine into consideration Jean Redinger
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Joan Rehme
2017 South Riley Highway
Shelbyville, IN 46176
Dear Ms. Rehme:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Mrs. Frank J. Rehme
2017 South Riley Highway
Shelbyville, Indiana 46176
Ms.
17ᵗˢᵗ & Pennsylvania Ace.
Tab 76, 1994
unshington DC20500
LEAr 1/75 the Ginty
This is 1, register 2.9 protost
AGAINST Resident Clinton's stated 011 The
recomption of emmeecial whating.
PLEASE strongly Consider the
contraction of the HARINE MAINMAL
Protection Act.
Thank GM.
Given truly,
Gm, Front) / ) been C. School
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Evelyn Rorick
1649 Rumsey Avenue
Ft. Wayne, IN 46808
Dear Ms. Rorick:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
be properly monitored to
2/24/94
insure that too many Jone
Dear ms mcGinty,
species or some endangered
peries are not taken.
Q am waiting to inform you
"Ne now know the USSR
that I strongly oppose the
U.S. support for the implementation
killed even Right Blue
of "science-based" commercial
whales after the moratorium
whaling These gentle grants
on whaling initially wasput
numbers have been severely
in place. Resuming commercial
depleted and will take many
whaling for ANY meason
more years to recover. Those
does a grave disservice to
species with ligh numbers
such as the minke should not
there wonderful, elegant,
anvent mammals that can
be hunted to the point where
protection is necessary. Whaling
so enhance the lives of
occurs in very rolated
everyone.
Hopefully
areas of the world the
number of whales taken for
Evelyn Rorick
1649 Rumsey Ave.
Ft. Wayne, IN 46808
Evilyn a Rorich
"scientific" purposes cannot
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Eileen Rowe
RD#2, Box 1123
Afton, NY 13730
Dear Ms. Rowe:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Kather Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
2/20/94
Da MoMashity
is completely unacep table!
Science based communical
One fhe Masm
wholing is a farce.
Suatul I fr the Clinton 1 Yre
Pleane -protect the
team was there strong stand
whale are steel
on the invironment.
in any mal dauge
Rm I am extremely
upset with the about face
Sincerely,
whiling m resemption of comminal
La Ran
ELLEEN ROCUE
Phase make tony
RD#2 Box 1123
char to Mr Clinton d
m. you chat this change
AFTON
NY13730
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Karen Robbie
Ms. Wendy Johnston
7 Winding Brook Drive #2L
Guilderland, NY 12084
Dear Ms. Robbie and Ms. Johnston:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
7 Winding Brook Dr. #2L
Guilderland. N.Y. 12084
February 24, 1994
Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President
for Environmental Policy
17th St. & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
To Kathleen McGinty:
We have just received a letter from Daniel J. Morast,
Director of the Whale Adoption Project sponsored by the
International Wildlife Coalition. We are absolutely
astonished to read that President Clinton's staff has
announced that the United States supports the implementation
of scientific-based commercial whaling. As we are sure that
you are aware, There are many people in our country that
are fascinated by these magnificent creatures. Overall, our
country is most interested in whales for recreational
purposes such as whale watching. Why are our interests not
being represented?
The inhumane slaughter that occurs now with
"scientific" whaling is being used for commercial reasons
more than any type of scientific research. We are appalled
that our president and vice-president are now willing to
support this practice! When we voted for this political team
last year, we had thought that finally we would have an
administration to take care of our earth and the creatures
on it. Unfortunately, we were wrong.
Please pass this information along to our
administration so that they can reassess their latest
position on this issue. The whales are innocent victims to
the human race. We need some caring humans to watch out for
the magnificent animals inhabiting our oceans.
Karea Sincerely, Robbie
Karen Robbie
Wendy Johnsh
Wendy Johnston
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Bobbi Rahder
926 Rockledge
Lawrence, KS 66049
Dear Ms. Rahder:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
February 22, 1994
Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy
17th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty:
I was just informed that the Clinton Administration now supports the implementation of
science-based commercial whaling and I was shocked. I'm finding it hard to believe that the Bill
Clinton and AI Gore team that I voted for would do something like that, so I am writing to you to
express my views and hope that there is still time to reverse this policy.
It is vital that the United States have a strong position opposing commercial whaling for the
upcoming Whaling Commission meeting in Mexico. The world is looking to the leadership of the
United States in this matter and we cannot sanction commercial whaling in any form.
My children and I have adopted a whale through the International Wildlife Coalition Whale
Adoption Project and I can't tell you how we look forward to looking for our whale Patches when
the newsletter comes to us. We read with sadness of the many strandings of whales and dolphins
and what is even more tragic--the deaths of whales we know because of accidents with fishing
vessels or getting tangled in fishing lines. We are increasingly concerned about the pollution of
the ocean and its affect on the whale population.
We do not understand at all this policy stand by the Clinton Administration. Clinton and
Gore have always been in the forefront of this country's environmental policies. We have looked
to them for leadership on these issues and until now, I have not been disappointed. They have
done good work on a number of different issues, and I have supported them both publicly and
privately for the changes they have instituted. But I cannot condone this policy on commercial
whaling. It must be reversed immediately. The lives of our adopted whale Patches and his friends
and relatives depends on our taking a strong stand against whaling of any kind.
Please convey the sentiments of my children and myself to President Clinton and Vice-
President AI Gore. I am sure when they rethink this situation, they will realize that condoning
commercial whaling would be disastrous and would go against everything they stand for.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Bobbi Rahdu
Bobbi Rahder
926 Rockledge
Lawrence, KS 66049
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Nicole Roberts
114 SE 5th Street
Apartment 409
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Dear Ms. Roberts:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Gatleen Kathleen A. a. McCinty Mily
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Nicole M. Roberts
114 SE 5th Street, Apt#409
Minneapolis, MN. 55414
(612) 379-1269
Thursday, February 24, 1994
Dear Kathleen McGinty,
I writing to inform you that I am strongly opposed to the Clinton
Administration's position for the resumption of commercial whaling.
Living beings are far more important than money. I wish those of you in
charge would start manifesting this truth.
Sincerely,
picole Roberts
Nicole Roberts
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Kathy Reeves
4317 East Emory Road
Knoxville, TN 37938
Dear Ms. Reeves:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Tablen a. Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Harrs middle A.D.
4317 E. Emary Rx.
Krepider, T.N 37935
Feb 23, 1994
Mrs. Kathleen
Deputy assistant In the Present
for Environmental Policy
17th street & PennsyDevine are, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20 500.
Dear m. Ms Ainty:
This litter 1 being written an fuldy
of my 121 students in science We
protect strongly (my protectation in
Inded) the resemption of cam-
mercial whating We enjoy encuron-
mental Indies, among which is are
particip Dien as - group - the whole
Edeption Project We Ise studies
the wide series Voyage of the Mimi
dliance you for registering there 122
pratute
sincerely,
Raty a A. Receive
(Jander)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Kathleen Roberts
R.D., Box 97
Olmstedville, NY 12857
Dear Ms. Roberts:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
R.D., Box 97
Olmstedville, N.Y. 12857
February 22, 1994
Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy
17th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty:
I am writing to express my STRONG OPPOSITION to the
announcement by The National Marine Fisheries Service that
the United States will now support the implementation of
science-based commercial whaling. This pro-whaling position
is a complete reversal of the strong U.S. stand against
commercial whaling. I am shocked and outraged that this
is even being considered. I feel it is a result of the
Clinton Adminstration's attempt to keep from having to
economically sanction Norway over their recent resumption of
commercial whaling.
I hope this position will be reconsidered and again the
U.S. will take a stand against commercial whaling, it is
absolutely essential to protect whales.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Rathleen Roberts
Kathleen Roberts
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Resa V. Rinaldi
40 Boylston Street
Meriden, CT 06450-4738
Dear Ms. Rinaldi:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Ratlen Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
R.V. Rinaldi
40 Boylston Street
Meriden, CT 06450-4738
February 24, 1994
Ms. Kathleen McGinty, Deputy Assistant for
Environmental Policy
17th Street & Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Re: Science-Based Commercial Whaling
Dear Ms. McGinty:
This letter is to advise you of my complete astonishment and
disappointment at the Clinton Administration's support for the
implementation of science-based commercial whaling.
While I understand the Administration's concerns regarding the
possible economic sanctions proposed against Norway over their
recent resumption of commercial whaling, especially in light of the
1994 Winter Olympics, I am appalled that this President could
completely reverse the U.S. stand taken at last year's meeting of
the International Whaling Commission.
As a member of the Whale Adoption project and the International
Wildlife Coalition, I applauded Bill Clinton's administration for
the good I believed could be accomplished, and voted accordingly in
last November's elections. I must now strongly protest this
administration's position for the resumption of whaling for any
purpose. As I am sure you are aware, the IWC is working diligently
on the reauthorization of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Scientific-based whaling is an excuse to kill animals which can be
observed in their natural habitat to much greater ends, ALIVE AND
WELL!!. This abomination must be stopped and the moratorium against
whaling be continued.
I emphatically plead with you, on behalf of the IWC, the whale
adoption project, and my adopted humpback whale, that the
resumption of commercial whaling be halted. With the completion of
the Olympics in Norway, we must now focus on what is really
important. The life of a beautiful and innocent animal must be
preserved at all costs.
Sincerely yours,
Awa U Rinalds
Resa V. Rinaldi
RR
CC: Daniel Morast, Director, Whale Adoption Project
Senator Joseph Lieberman, D, CT
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Brenda L. Rudler
First District Elementary School
725 North Main Street
Meadville, PA 16335
Dear Ms. Rudler:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
February 23. 1994
Kathleen McGintv
Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy
17th St. & Pennsvlvania Avenue
N. W.. Washington DC 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty.
I am writing to express a concern I have with a recent
decision made by the Clinton administration. I refer to the
decision to support the implementation of sclence-based
commercial whaling. This is a poor decision based solely. I
feel. on political grounds relating to sanctions against
Norway!
I have not vet resolved why we as human beings believe
that all living creatures are here on this earth at our
disposal. This is à sad statement on the values that we. 35
Americans. have on life. Please discourage the
administration from going through with this massacre of
innocent life. Perhaps our beloved country would be more
prosperous and respected if we would be more respecting of
living things and the wonders of life.
Leave the mammals of the sea alone. The species has
suffered enough. WE use a variety of other living creatures
to determine useless scientific facts. I am a kindergarten
teacher whose class has adopted a whale through the Whale
Adoption Project. The children in my classroom have grown
to love this mammal and have developed a respect for living
creatures-something I wish many in the current presidential
administration had!
Please discourage the current policy makers from
carrying this decision. Please give this issue more thought
and please keep our beloved whale - Digit - safe in his own
habitat!
Thank you for your consideration.
Brenda L. Rudler M.. Ed.
and
Kindergarten Friends
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1994
Mr. Robert N. Rylands
5971 San Michelle Drive
Sarasota, FL 34243
Dear Mr. Rylands:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither EPA nor this Administration has
made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Katten Kathleen A. a. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Robert N. Rylands
5971 San Michelle Dr.
Sarasota, Florida 34243
Feb. 25, 1994
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
DIRECTOR KATHLEEN MCGINTY
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BLDG.
WASHINGTON, DC. 20501
DEAR MS. MCGINTY- THIS LETTER TO MY U.S. CONGRESSMEN IS FOR YOURINFO. I
AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE ISSUE CITED BELOW.
I am a retiree from a company in the vinyl business. My and my wife's
livelyhood depends on the pension that I receive from the company that
I worked for for almost 38 years. It now comes to my attention that the
entire industry and others involved in the use of chlorine materials is
in jeopardy. Articles in the Feb. 2nd, 1994 issues of USA TODAY and the
WALL STREET JOURNAL state that Carol Browner, the EPA Administrator in the
Clinton administration announced that she was asking Congress to authorize
the EPA to conduct a study over the next three years designed to develop
a strategy that would prohibit, reduce, or substitute the use of chlorine.
It is clear that the EPA is seriously considering an environmental agenda
that includes a total and complete ban on the use of chlorine and chlorine
compounds without any regard to the risk of such an action. Such an
arbitrary approach is unwarranted, unsupported by science, and highly disrup-
tive to society. Good science and common sense tells us that banning an
element like chlorine that is basic to our natural environment is nonsense.
Taking it to the extreme, we would stop putting salt in our food and salt
on our roads in the winter simply because it contains chlorine. It would
be a problem for providing healthy water for drinking and for swimming
pools. And I understand that it could jeopardize the jobs of 1.3
million people in the U.S. who work for chlorine-related industries.
I am told that the U.S. EPA developed and delivered their announcement with-
ALSO
NOTE
out any prior or input from industry. This action disagrees with the fair
and inclusive process that our democratic government was founded on and that
the Clinton administration has pledged to follow.
Both the House and the Senate are about to address (if not already) this
issue in Committees relative to the Clean Water Act. I ask that you
oppose the inclusion of the Administration's chlorine initiative to
outlaw the use or partial use of this material.
I firmly believe that the use of chlorine and the products from it can be
addressed under existing laws and regulations by:
(1) A sound science that weighs all the evidence in an even-handed manner
(2) A fair and balanced process that involves all stakeholders.
(3) Weighing social and economic factors and
(4) Evaluating the risks of not using chlorine and the risks associated
with the use of potential alternatives.
Again, I ask that you support the opposition of these chlorine ban proposals.
Sincerely,
Robert Rylands
Robert N Relaws
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1994
Mr. Claud R. Richardson
551 Cox Lane
Elizabethtown, KY 42701
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither EPA nor this Administration has
made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Jatheen A. Kathleen A. McGinty Mising
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
February 18, 1994
Ms. Kathleen Genty
Deputy Assistant to the President/Director Office of Environmental
Policy
Old Executive Office Building, Room 360
Washington D.C. 20501
Dear Ms. Genty:
I write to call your attention to a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) request for Congressional authorization to
conduct a study to develop a strategy to "prohibit, reduce or
substitute (for) the use of chlorine.' This proposal is part of the
Administration's recommendations for Clean Water Act
reauthorization sent to Congress this week. Those of us involved
with chlorine chemistry vigorously oppose it.
The recommendation on chlorine is scientifically unfounded. It
conflicts directly with EPA's own response to the International
Joint Commission specifically rejecting sunsetting chlorine and
chlorine-containing compounds. Prohibiting chlorine and chlorinated
compounds without justification would cause irreparable damage to
the U.S. economy and would severely diminish U.S. global
competitiveness.
Chlorine chemistry plays a critical role in health care, and is an
integral part of many medicines, disinfectants, crop-protection
chemicals, and plastics. The production of Silicone based products
manufactured at the Elizabethtown, KY plant, where I work, would
also cease.
This recommendation does not belong in the Clean water Act because
that act is designed to prevent pollution, not "prohibit" the use
of chemicals. If the Act goes forward as proposed, I will oppose it
vigorously. I would like to have your support in this matter.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
bland R. Richardoon
Claud R. Richardson
551 Cox Lane
Elizabethtown, KY 42701
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1994
Ferol L. Rome
59160 Lillian Avenue
Plaquemine, LA 70764
Dear Ferol:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither EPA nor this Administration has
made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Jtahlen Kathleen A. a. Mabis
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
February 17, 1994
Office of Environmental Policy
Deputy Asst. to the President & Director
Kathleen McGinty
Old Executive Office Building
Room 360
17th St. & Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty:
I am opposed to recent EPA strategy to prohibit, reduce, or ban the use of chlorine by attaching
it to the Clean Water Act. A ban on chlorine would have a devastating effect on an economy
just recovering. Forty-four of the fifty-two states have chlorine processing plants, while forty-
six states have polyvinyl chloride fabrication plants. Such a ban would cost 1.3 million jobs,
not to mention the effect on agriculture, medicines, and water disinfectants.
As one of the 1.3 million wage earners in the chlorine related industry, I am asking for your
help in defeating the strategy to ban chlorine.
Sincerely,
Jerse L. Rome
Ferol L. Rome
59160 Lillian Avenue
Plaquemine, LA 70764
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1994
Mr. Thomas W. Rachal
9920 Hillyard Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Dear Mr. Rachal:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither EPA nor this Administration has
made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Gatheen Kathleen A. a. McGinty Mising
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Thomas W. Rachal
9920 Hillyard Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
February 18, 1994
Kathleen McGinty
Environmental Policy Office
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty:
Recently, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) requested authorization from Congress to conduct a study
which would, among other things, allow the Agency to conduct a
study to develop a strategy to "prohibit, reduce, or substitute the
use of chlorine." This request was made as part of the
Administration's recommendations to rewrite the Clean Water Act.
I object to the EPA proposal on several grounds. First, and
perhaps most importantly, the request is scientifically unfounded.
Chlorine and chlorinated compounds are essential to modern life.
We depend on chlorine in drinking water, pharmaceuticals, crop
protection chemicals, and countless other products to meet the most
vital needs of our society. The prohibition of chlorine without
justification would be a severe economic blow to our nation as
well. Over 1.3 million jobs in the U.S. depend on chlorine.
Chlorine containing products account for nearly 40% of our gross
domestic product.
I further object to the EPA proposal on the grounds that it
was arrived at through an unbalanced process. While the EPA saw
fit to include certain activist groups in the process, those of us
in the scientific community were summarily excluded. Furthermore,
at no time during the process was any type of risk-benefit analysis
proposed.
Finally, we have in place more than enough laws and
regulations at the federal, state, and local levels to safely guard
us from the risks of toxic chemicals. I wholeheartedly support the
rigorous enforcement of these laws.
The recommendations made by the EPA regarding chlorine do not
belong in the Clean Water Act. The Act was designed to prevent
pollution, not to prohibit the use of chemicals. If the Act
contains a chlorine recommendation along the lines of the EPA
concept, I will vehemently oppose it and I strongly urge you to do
the same. By virtue of this letter I am asking you to express my
concerns to the White House, the EPA, and to other members of
Congress.
Thomas W. Rachal
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1994
Mr. Ralph C. Reed
Manager, Midland Site
Dow Corning Corporation
Midland, MI 48686-0995
Dear Mr. Reed:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither EPA nor this Administration has
made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Katheen Kathleen A. a. McGinty M'Dig
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
DOW CORNING
UNATED = YEARS
1942-1993
February 17, 1994
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President
and Director, Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building
Room 360
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty:
A chlorine ban would be devastating to the 8,000 employees of
Dow Corning Corporation, the State of Michigan, and the
United States economy.
Please let me know your views on this critical emerging
issue.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph C. Reed
Manager, Midland Site
kr
DOW CORNING CORPORATION, MIDLAND, MICHIGAN 48686-0995
TELEPHONE: (517) 496-4000
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 4, 1994
Mr. David P. Ryan
Senior Fellow
The Institute of Public Policy
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA
Dear Mr. Ryan:
Thank you for your letter and the
Environmental Policy Advisory you
enclosed. It was good to hear from you.
Please be assured that the report
will be carefully reviewed by my staff.
Again, thank you for sharing this
report with me. I wish the best for the
students who have been involved in this
project.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
February 8, 1994
Ms. Katie McGinty
Special Assistant to the
President for the Environment
Executive Office of the President
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Wash., DC 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty:
This is the second in a series of four Environmental Policy
Advisories. It is the result of a semester long process at George
Mason University in which nine, advanced level graduate students
reviewed one of the most pressing issues of the day; insufficient
funding to pay for the programs mandated by our current
environmental statutes.
With support from the Department of Public Affairs and the
Institute of Public Policy, the undersigned students concluded that
the country's decision makers and political leaders have to make a
drastic adjustment in the way they develop and implement the myriad
and expensive laws designed to protect our environment. This is a
crisis of national proportion because it not only threatens the
future of the environmental movement but, if action isn't taken, we
might face the possibility of actually losing some of the hard won
gains we have already achieved.
The Advisory presents specific recommendations on making
change and decision makers are encouraged to review and use these
ideas. Taken as a total package, the document offers an innovative
and bold new paradigm that could be used to guide the Nation's
environmental agenda for years to come. Hopefully this will become
a part of a debate on the future of environmental protection in
this country.
I ask that you mail responses or comments about the Advisory
to each of the students that participated in its creation.
Sincerely,
David P. Ryan
Senior Fellow
The Institute of Public Policy
George Mason University
1/31/94
KathleenMcGinty
fyi-
1
natio
X6-7486
Rm 6
SERVICES
HUMAN
17.
White
9311290006
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
HEALTH
House
=
Food and Drug Administration
Rockville MD 20857
December 9, 1993
Mr.. Jim Reed
3232 East Hazelwood
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Dear Mr. Reed:
This is in response to your October 29 letter to Katie McGinty,
requesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) initiate an
investigation into the events leading to HIV transmission in
hemophiliacs through contaminated blood. Your letter was just
recently forwarded to our office for reply.
We sympathize deeply with hemophilia/HIV victims. We have
learned a great deal about the AIDS virus since the early 1980s
and have put very stringent mechanisms in place for proper blood
screening. Our Nation's blood supply is now the safest in the
world. But at the same time, I believe that the results of such
an investigation could be helpful in strengthening our capacities
to ensure the safety of the blood supply.
Because a high level of scientific and medical expertise is
required to conduct a thorough study, Secretary Donna Shalala did
not believe it was appropriate to assign the responsibility to
the DOJ. Instead, she decided that the project will be
undertaken by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy
of Sciences, an external organization with proven experience in
conducting studies of a similar nature. This decision has been
shared with the U.S. Congress.
Thank you for expressing your thoughts and concerns.
Sincerely yours,
Beth
Beth S. Robins
Policy Monitor
Office of the Executive Secretariat
CC: Peter Hoffman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 15, 1993
Mr. Jim Reed
3232 East Hazelwood
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Mr. Reed,
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of
Justice investigation into the sales of blood clotting factor to
the U.S. hemophilia population. It was good to hear from you.
I certainly appreciate hearing your concerns that injustices
are being committed by plasma refiners and clotting factor
manufacturers by selling their products to patients at enormously
high costs. In these times of international health crises it is
vital that the correct procedures are followed without added
burden for those already afflicted with hemophilia.
Although these issues are not related to our office, I have
taken the liberty of forwarding your letter to appropriate
officials at the Department of Justice as well as the Department
of Health and Human Services for their review and response. I am
sure that they will give your concerns every consideration in
their pursuits of medical justice.
Again, thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
Sincerely,
Katileen Kathleen A. McGinty Maring
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jac
T63308 TRACER
9311290006
October 29, 1993
Ms. Katie McGinty
The White House
Washington D.C. 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty,
I am writing to seek your assistance in persuading
the Department of Justice to initiate an investigation into the
sales of blood clotting factor to the U.S. hemophilia population.
I have performed volunteer legal services on behalf of the
U.S. hemophilia community for the last several years, and,
along with other individuals, have gathered sufficient
evidence of price-fixing to warrant a DOJ investigation.
Currently, an assistant U.S. attorney and an Antitrust
Division trial attorney are lobbying on our behalf, but
we believe that an advocate within the Administration is
needed before the Antitrust Division will assign to this
matter a top priority.
I am writing to you, in particular, because we
were classmates at Columbia and I had been told that you had
a position in this administration. While I know that the
merger activity of TCI, Viacom and Paramount is important,
I believe that this investigation and possible lawsuit
would be as important. This is a discrete, poorly understood
industry, yet it is worth more than two billion dollars per
year to the refiners of blood plasma. The U.S. hemophilia
population has suffered, as a result of poor screening or
viral inactivation techniques on the part of plasma refiners,
a rate of HIV-infection greater than any other population in
the world. The manufacturers, in turn, have relied upon
this infection rate to justify charging the highest prices
possible for high purity clotting factor. We are prepared
to demonstrate to the DOJ that these prices have been
uniformly high, at the level of $75,000 to $200,000 per year
for each of the nation's twelve thousand severe hemophilia
patients, because of price-information exchange, collusion
and price-fixing agreements. If these anti-competitive
agreements are not investigated by the federal government,
and the price of clotting factor placed at a reasonable level
that would result from natural market competition, the results
for the nations twenty thousand mild, moderate and severe
hemophilia patients and their families will be catastrophic.
letter to McGinty
page two
I make none of these arguments lacking either
the knowledge of antitrust law or the workings of the
U.S. plasma market to support them. I was an associate
specializing in antitrust at Breed, Abbott & Morgan for
two years, and this particular matter has been brought to
the DOJ's attention after two years of research on our part.
We are convinced that the federal government will find these
issues to be among the most compelling ever investigated in
the U.S. medical industry, and the support of such an
investigation by this Administration would be clearly in
keeping with the philosophies of economic and social justice
girding its healthcare reform proposals. Such an investigation
would dramatically demonstrate to the country the evils of
profit motive in the healthcare industry, and I believe
would accrue great benefit both to the hemophilia population
and to the credibility of this Administration's healthcare
cost-control activities.
I hope to speak with you in the very near future
about this issue. If you wish to write, you may contact me at:
3232 East Hazelwood
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
(602) 468-0339 Home
(602) 254-4770 Office
My official capacity within the hemophilia legal community
currently is as the vice-president of the Hemophilia Equity
& Law Project, Inc. ("HELP"). Peter Hoffman of South Salem,
New York, a recent graduate of CUNY law school and the father
of a six year old boy with severe hemophilia is the president
and founder of the organization. Peter has already done
extensive investigation into this matter, particularly as it
relates to the activities of the New York regional blood
purchasing consortium, and persuaded several House Representatives
to begin a House investigation of the activities of the U.S.
plasma fractionation industry. If you wish to speak to him
direct, you may do so at:
Hemophilia Equity and Law Project, Inc.
RR #3 Box 264A
8 Truesdale Lake Drive
South Salem, New York 10590
Phone (914) 763-3864
FAX (914) 763-9112
Thank you for your assistance, and congratulations
on your success.
Very truly yours,
Jam Reed Reel
NOV LJ 2 51 in 33
EXECUTIVE CORRETARIAT
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OTON. 15 PM NOV OF
200
1792
WASH .D.E. GMF 08R#7 11/16/83 1993 00:00
29
USA
Jerry D. Jepner
Asst. secy., legislation
Department of Health & Human Services
200 Independence Ave SW.# 416 G
Washington. DC 20201