ENERGY AMERICA EDUCATION FUND
Newmarket Road, Box 201; Warner, N.H. 03278
Phone 603-431-2499 / Fax 603-456-3641
 
Embargoed for Release Until Wednesday February 7, 1996 at 10:00 a.m.
 
Contact:  Henry Griggs   202-682-1270
          Ken Bossong    301-270-2258
          Matt Freedman  [log in to unmask]
 
**The survey can be accessed at http://www.essential.org/CMEP**
 
Survey of Presidential Candidates Finds Sharp Differences
Among Republicans and With President Clinton
on Environmental Protection and Energy Policy Issues
 
Washington, D.C. -- Responses from President Clinton and all of
the major Republican candidates to a "Presidential Candidates
Environmental and Energy Issues Questionnaire" released today
reflect a range of views not only between President Clinton and
the candidates for the Republican nomination but among the
Republican candidates themselves.
 
     The questionnaire was prepared and circulated by the Energy
America Education Fund, a non-partisan, non-profit New Hampshire
organization.  Written responses to its 16-question survey were
obtained over the past four weeks from President Bill Clinton,
Senators Bob Dole (KS), Phil Gramm (TX), and Richard Lugar (IN),
Congressman Robert Dornan (CA), former governor Lamar Alexander
(TN), businessmen Steve Forbes and Morry Taylor, and media
commentators Patrick Buchanan and Alan Keyes.
 
     While President Clinton generally staked out stronger
pro-environment positions in response to most questions than his
would-be Republican challengers, numerous public opinion surveys
suggest that all the candidates may be out of step with voters on
key environmental and energy policy issues -- to their potential
detriment.
 
     For example, a survey conducted last month by
Research/Strategy/Management, a Republican polling firm, for the
Sustainable Energy Budget Coalition found that nearly 60 percent
of voters said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate
who shares their energy priorities.  Furthermore, they
overwhelmingly favor continuing federal support for renewable
energy and energy efficiency programs while reducing support for
conventional energy sources such as nuclear, coal, and oil.  Most
of the responses ran counter to these preferences.
 
     For instance, only Clinton and Lugar objected to the 25
percent cut in FY'96 funding approved by Congress for the U.S.
Department of Energy's (DOE) energy efficiency and renewable
energy programs while the other Republican candidates indicated
their support for reducing those budgets.  Lugar, though, felt
"DOE programs must be eligible to take some cuts."  Forbes noted
that "additional cuts may be needed so I have not yet established
a funding level."
 
     When asked whether they support abolishing DOE itself, the
candidates split along party lines with most of the Republicans
wanting to close it down; Lugar, however, is opposed to
abolishing it "at this time" but could consider the option if it
were "part of a general reorganization of the Executive Branch."
Clinton, citing an Administration plan to reduce DOE costs by $10
billion by 2000, supports preserving essential DOE functions
"such as research and development, efficiency programs, and
critical defense programs."
 
     However, possibly recognizing its popularity among New
Hampshire voters particularly during the recent cold wave and
blizzards, most of the Republican candidates as well as Clinton
expressed support for funding DOE's Weatherization Assistance
Program (WAP) as well as the Health and Human Services
Department's Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
Alexander, Keyes, and Dornan, though, endorsed proposed cuts of
40 percent in funding for these programs.  Dole said that funding
levels depend on other competing priorities and the need to
balance the budget as well as noted that "the states should have
more say" have these resources are used.  Forbes has "established
no specific funding level" while Buchanan did not share his views
on this issue.
 
     Divisions among the Republicans were evident when asked
whether they would support a 35 percent cut in the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) FY'96 budget as earlier approved by the
U.S. House of Representatives.  Taylor, Buchanan, and Dornan all
support such a cut.  Gramm indicated that EPA would be
hard-pressed to justify not having its budget cut.  Lugar and
Dole oppose a 35% cut but are willing to support smaller
reductions as approved by the U.S. Senate while Alexander would
retarget at least some funding to the states "to keep their
drinking water clean."  Clinton "is strongly opposed to cuts of
this magnitude" in EPA's budget.  Keyes added that
"appropriations riders were the only way to discipline EPA after
the environmental establishment blocked reauthorization of major
environmental bills."  Again, Forbes noted that he has
"established no specific funding level."
 
     A split also exists regarding new appliance efficiency
standards.  Lugar and Taylor both expressed support for such
standards as did Clinton who maintains that they "have saved
consumers billions of dollars in the past 10 years."  Alexander
noted that "they do need to be reformed."  Senators Gramm and
Dole indicated that the marketplace, rather than the federal
government, should dictate efficiency standards.  Dornan, Forbes,
and Keyes favor the phase-out of new standards; and Buchanan
offered no response.
 
     Alexander, Buchanan, Dornan, Forbes, and Taylor explicitly
support the construction of new nuclear plants in this country
while Lugar "would not rule out construction if a particular
plant is economical and safe."  Dole expresses a similar view
noting that the problem of disposing of nuclear waste "needs to
be resolved."  Gramm would leave nuclear construction decisions
to the states and localities while continuing federal safety
standards.  Keyes support new plant construction provided they
"are not built with tax dollars."  Clinton favors "research and
development funding to help develop more cost-effective nuclear
plant designs" while letting "the market and the public choose
the technology and fuels for future electricity generation -- not
the government."
 
     Alexander, Dornan, Taylor, and Lugar ("if needed to avoid
premature licensing of a permanent storage facility") support
establishing an interim storage facility for high-level waste in
Nevada.  Buchanan and Keyes offered no comment while Forbes said
that he was "undecided pending further study.  Gramm said the
federal government must "work closely with individual states to
best determine the future of interim storage issues."  Dole
favors building such a facility but would leave "determinations
regarding the siting of that facility to the legislative
process."  Clinton "opposes building anywhere a temporary storage
facility for high-level waste until scientific investigation on a
permanent disposal site is farther along."
 
     The proposed transfer of federal land for the proposed Ward
Valley, California "low-level" nuclear waste facility is
generally supported by all the candidates other than Buchanan and
Taylor who offered no comment and Forbes who, again, was
"undecided pending further study."  Dole and Lugar pointed to
earlier scientific studies that support opening the site.
Clinton, who earlier vetoed a measure he claimed lacked "any
binding commitments for public safeguards" said his support is
conditioned on "the proper health and safety standards [being] in
place" while Alexander wants the project to be "scientifically
and environmentally sound."
 
     All the Republican candidates favor opening the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration and drilling.
Dole supports development on ANWR's Coastal Plain, where only "a
small portion" would be affected "because it can be done safely
and responsibly without damage to the environment," while Lugar
assumes that "strict regulations and advanced technology will
protect wildlife."  Alexander believes "the technology now exists
to begin limited oil and gas exploration in a way that would be
safe for the environment."  Clinton is opposed noting that the
region "is a rare, pristine wilderness that should be preserved
for future generations [and] there is more oil in energy
efficiency."
 
     On the other hand, only Taylor supports raising fuel
efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks.  Clinton
prefers pursuing a partnership with the domestic auto industry
"to develop a new generation of high-performance, affordable
vehicles [that are] up to three times more fuel efficient."
Keyes maintains that "CAFE kills 2,000 - 4,000 people a year by
making larger, safer cars less affordable."  Dole would rely on
"market-based mechanisms to get the really inefficient and
polluting cars off the road."  Both he and Taylor expressed
support for increased use of ethanol as a transportation fuel.
 
     Clinton and Dornan report that they support cutting
"greenhouse gas" emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Lugar notes that he supported the 1992 Climate Change Convention
that called for the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions
while Dole supports former President Bush's "commitment
to prepare a plan with the objective of returning  U.S.
greenhouse gas levels in the year 2000 to 1990 levels through
voluntary measures."  Alexander acknowledges that this is "a
serious issue" but opposes acting unless done "in conjunction
with other countries" while Gramm would rely on only
"market-driven energy efficiency" and would "oppose artificial
government mandates."  Forbes "question[s] the need for
restricting the United States' ability to create jobs for our
people based on a global warming theory which is unproven."
Keyes is opposed while Buchanan and Taylor did not respond.
 
     All the candidates say they support applying cost/benefit
tests to all new and existing federal environmental and energy
regulation although Clinton would oppose its use if it "would
cause undue delay or litigation or would roll back health,
safety, and environmental protection."  Lugar favors its use
"to achieve strict environmental standards a reasonable cost."
Gramm would subject "all regulatory legislation to risk
assessment or cost-benefit studies."  Dole wants to "emphasize
sound science, prioritize our efforts, be careful of pursuing
small risks at great costs, and understand that spending more to
chase slight or sensational risks means less state, local and
individual resources are available to meet other health or
societal needs."
 
     Dornan, Buchanan, Taylor, and Keyes (who favors "voluntary,
incentive-based conservation") oppose reauthorization and strict
enforcement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Forbes is also
opposed "unless common sense amendments are adopted to stop
prosecution of farmers who run over endangered rats while plowing
their fields and similar ridiculous situations."  Gramm would
"support a rational, science-based law which respects private
property and individual jobs."  Noting his experience with the
snail darter, Alexander favors reforming the law so that is "less
onerous to property owners, gives more incentives to property
owners to protect endangered species, but still retains federal
protection of endangered species and their habitats."  Dole also
calls for ESA's reform charging that the law "has effectively
placed the judiciary in charge of commerce and land management in
significant portions of the West and Northwest."  Lugar favors
reauthorization noting that "the scope of the ESA needs
clarification" while Clinton supports a "strong ESA that protects
wildlife and provides more flexibility to landowners and more
involvement for the states."
 
     All the Republicans, other than Lugar, support federal
"takings" legislation that would require payment if federal
environmental regulations reduce property values.  Lugar reports
that he is "skeptical that Congress should try to improve upon
the work of the courts in defining a taking or determining what
is just compensation."  Similarly, Clinton believes that proposed
"takings" legislation "goes beyond Constitutional protections; it
would cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and weaken
safeguards for public health, safety, and the environment."
 
     All the Republicans as well as Clinton say they want the
government to receive a fair market return for publicly owned
minerals extracted by private mining companies on federal land.
Gramm and Lugar expressly called for an increase in the amount
charged to mining companies using federal lands.  While saying he
supports reform of "out-dated mining laws," Dole also "opposes
efforts that would put miners and others in related activities
out of work, severely impact the economy in our Western states
and actually decrease Federal revenues."  Forbes "support[s] the
principle of a fair market return but have endorsed no specific
plan as of now."  Keyes, though, recommends that market value be
"determined by some kind of auction or competitive bidding
process."
 
     Finally, all of the Republican candidates other than
Buchanan (who did not respond) support repealing the 1935 Public
Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA).  Dole calls PUHCA "an
outdated statute that no longer provides benefits to consumers or
investors and should be repealed" while Lugar conditions his
support for repeal on whether "this would eliminate duplicative
regulation."  Clinton, however, opposes repeal because the law
"still serves as an important safeguard for consumers [but] as
the electric utility industry becomes more competitive, the
Administration will assess the prospects for undertaking
statutory reforms of PUHCA."
 
                               # # # # # # #
 
     The Energy America Education Fund is a non-partisan,
not-for-profit, New Hampshire-based organization founded in 1991
to provide information on the energy and environmental views of
candidates for national office.
 
     A copy of the complete 12-page compilation of the
candidates' responses to the Energy America questionnaire is
available for a stamped (55-cents), self-addressed envelope from
the SUN DAY Campaign, 315 Circle Avenue, #2, Takoma Park, MD
20912 (301-270-2258).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 7, 1996
 
CONTACT:  Bill Magavern  202-546-4996
          Matt Freedman  [log in to unmask]
 
STATEMENT OF BILL MAGAVERN
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC CITIZEN'S CRITICAL MASS ENERGY PROJECT
ON ENERGY AMERICA'S PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES QUESTIONNAIRE
 
     The candidates' positions on several sustainable energy
issues put them closer to the polluting special interests than to
the voters. While the American people have repeatedly called for
movement away from dirty nuclear and fossil fuels toward cleaner
renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, the
politicians continue to side with big corporate interests who are
blocking change.
 
     The major candidates oppose a fuel-saving 45 miles per
gallon standard for motor vehicles, which would save Americans
billions of dollars while reducing air pollution. In 1992, Bill
Clinton supported raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy
standards from 27.5 mpg to 45 mpg. In 1996, he has flip-flopped
and joined the leading Republicans and General Motors, Ford and
Chrysler in opposing 45 mpg.
 
     The Democratic and Republican contenders also side with the
nuclear industry by backing, to varying degrees, construction of
more nuclear power plants and a nuclear waste dump in California,
both of which have been rejected by large majorities in public
opinion polls. In fact, a recent survey found that only two per
cent of utility industry executives would consider ordering a new
nuclear power plant, compared to 89 per cent who would not. So
the candidates who support construction of new nuclear reactors
are not only well behind the public, but even behind the
electricity industry. At least President Clinton opposes forcing
a storage site for high-level radioactive waste on Nevada, but
the Republican candidates either support the industry-backed plan
or refuse to oppose it. Dole, Gramm, Alexander and Buchanan claim
to support increasing the authority of state governments, but
only President Clinton has actually come out against the nuclear
industry's attempt to cram a radioactive waste dump down the
throat of an unwilling state.
 
                              ##
 
Public Citizen is a non-profit, non-partisan research and
advocacy organization. Critical Mass is Public Citizen's energy
policy group.
 
The complete Energy America 1996 U.S. Presidential Candidates
Environmental & Energy Issues Questionnaire is posted on Critical
Mass's home page on the World Wide Web (http://www.essential.org/CMEP)
----------------------------------------------------------------
To receive regular energy policy alerts, summaries and updates
from Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project, send the
following message to [log in to unmask]: SUBSCRIBE CMEP-LIST
[your name - organizational affiliation - home state]