Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Panel Reaction to Cheney Interview

Aired May 08, 2001 - 11:21   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Let's bring back our panel of journalists who have been with us this morning watching what Vice President Dick Cheney had to say to our John King.

CNN Washington bureau chief Frank Sesno is with us this morning, as is CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider, and "Time" magazine's Michael Weisskopf. All right, guys, let's start with your first impressions of what you heard. Let's start with you, Michael.

MICHAEL WEISSKOPF, "TIME" MAGAZINE: The news here was that the administration has on the table some kind of extension of authority by the federal government to take land for the construction of power plants. This is something, of course, they did not commit to, but is likely to antagonize both conservatives, who will see it as a taking issue, and environmentalists.

HARRIS: All right. Frank, your headline from here?

FRANK SESNO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Headline from here, of course, is something we've been hearing, we're going to hear a great deal more of. And that is if you want to have more power and less greenhouse gases, go nuclear.

The vice president has said publicly before, and it will be clear that it's going to be a part of this energy policy, that the United States of America should have more than 20 percent of its power fueled by nuclear reactors. He said they are and they're efficient, and they don't contribute to greenhouse gases.

HARRIS: Well, Bill, you hear these two gentlemen here describe what they heard. I wonder what you think about what the two sides of what Dick Cheney described as this dichotomy, he's been watching this debate as it's unfolded, those who may be environmentally more concerned and those who may be more concerned with industry and providing what he called legitimate energy needs for the country. What might both of those different sides be taking from what they heard this morning?

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think the environmentalists heard a little bit more attention to conservation than Cheney gave in his Associated Press remarks last week. He was a bit more respectful and attentive to them, didn't take anything back, but he still put his stress on long-term solutions. I think a lot of members of Congress were listening to see what is it the White House is going to do now about the immediate problem, political problem of rising gasoline prices. He did not have a lot to say about that. Everything he said we was we have a lot of long-term solutions involving more power plants, increasing supply. But short- term solutions, I don't think there were any in this interview.

HARRIS: How about the issue of the comprehensiveness of the Bush administration's energy plan right now? What do you think of that, Frank?

SESNO: Well, I think that that is what you are going to hear a great deal of. And officials tell us as this plan is rolled out and cabinet officials go across the country, they're going to be doing what the vice president tried to do today. And that explain this in a way that people can understand.

They know that their computers and their calculators have gotten smaller over the last 20 years and infinitely more powerful. They know that they believe in technology. And they know that through their own experiences, whether it's at the pump or buying natural gas to heat their homes, they know that prices have gone up. So they're going to be appealing to that common sense kind of experience that folks have right on the ground of where they live to push this policy forward.

HARRIS: Michael, I'm sure you probably have seen the polls that we've been talking quite a bit about from the American people not being all that convinced that the Bush administration is taking that much care or thought about what it is they are going through on a daily basis. Is what we heard this morning going to change many minds?

WEISSKOPF: I think as Bill pointed out, there was more focus on environmental approaches, environmentally safe approaches. That will give a comprehensive nature to this.

And we have to remind ourselves that Cheney is not a ravager of the environment. He in the past has sought protection, for instance, of Wyoming wilderness. And you will see some of that type of sensitivity probably reflected in this report, not only for political reasons, but for common sense reasons.

HARRIS: Bill Schneider, your thoughts on that?

SCHNEIDER: Well, I thought he responded in a very direct way to the challenge put down by Gray Davis. Gray Davis said that he thought that the vice president was missing the boat in his remarks last week.

So he threw it right back at California. He said, "Californians thought we could conserve our way out of the problem. But they haven't built any new power plants in the last 10 years. They relied only on conservation." And the vice president said, "Look what happened to them. There's a lesson there."

HARRIS: All right, final thoughts this morning on the note that he made of the different changes between the previous administration in which he worked and the current one. Frank?

SESNO: Well, clearly there are -- on the energy subject you're talking here, Leon?

HARRIS: Yes.

SESNO: You know, I think the key quote here -- and it does draw the comparison with the Clinton administration and the Bush administration -- the vice president said, "Lifestyle," referring to American lifestyle, "is very important. And with technology, there's no reason we can't do it," meaning maintain the lifestyle as it is.

So, yes, discussion about conservation. Yes, we will be hearing a great deal more of that from this administration. But principally, as you heard here today, looking forward and focusing on development exploration, and the miracles that technology can make -- can accomplish to deliver that in safe, clean way. That's very different than what we heard from the previous administration.

HARRIS: We're going to have to leave it there, gentlemen. We have to move on this morning. We want to thank all of you for coming in. Our Washington bureau chief Frank Sesno and our senior political analyst Bill Schneider, and, of course, Michael Weisskopf from "Time" magazine. Thanks much, gentlemen. Appreciate it.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: More on energy proposal in just a moment. But also interesting that John had a chance to ask about Mr. Cheney's health. I think a lot of people across America are interested in that. And the vice president making a little bit of a joke saying he was the best-known heart patient in America.

HARRIS: It shows he's interested in his health as well.

KAGAN: Yes, absolutely. Of course, bottom line he said he's doing well and is well monitored, might have to go back in to check up on things, but he is doing OK.

OK, now back to energy topic. And not everyone embracing the Bush administration's approach to the country energy and environmental needs. Our Jeanne Meserve is in Washington now chatting with someone working on the front lines of both of those issues -- Jeanne, good morning.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Daryn.

And joining me from Los Angeles is Robert Kennedy, Jr. He is senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Counsel. Thanks for joining us.

First of all, one could argue that the vice president sounded eminently reasonable. He talked about his belief in renewable energy sources. He talked about the need for conservation. But he said we need new sources of supply. Is his a balanced, rational approach?

ROBERT KENNEDY, JR., NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL: Well, we don't know what's in the package yet. We do know that the environmental movement has been excluded from discussion on the package.

One of the things that the vice president said is that we need more of a dialogue. We've tried to get into the White House and tried to speak to some of the authors of this package to give what our point of view is.

We've seen the oil company and the utility executives going back and forth from the White House. We have no idea what's in the package except for the hints that we've received from Vice President Cheney's speech in Toronto last week and what he said here today.

MESERVE: We did get some hints here today. If we could talk about that on the issue of nuclear power, he said safe, efficient. We ought to take another look. Should we?

KENNEDY: Right. I mean, nuclear -- there hasn't been a nuke plant proposed since 1973, since Three Miles Island. The reason for it is because it's just not economical. "Forbes" magazine recently called the American experiment with civilian nuclear power the greatest economic catastrophe in human history.

(CROSSTALK)

MESERVE: But does the current energy situation change the economic equation?

KENNEDY: No, because it's still the most expensive energy that we have. It still requires huge government subsidies to make it work. And we still don't know what we are going to do with the waste for the next 1,000 years.

It couldn't possibly be economic. One of the other things that Vice President Cheney said today is he made it clear that he is not going to ask for corporate average fuel efficiency standards, which should be the centerpiece of any environmental -- of any energy policy.

Good economic policy is always identical to good environmental policy if we want to measure the economy based upon how it produces jobs sustainably over the long term. What he is doing really is just treating the planet as if it were business and liquidation. If we were to raise our corporate average fuel efficiency standards by as little as three miles per gallon, we would make up three times the amount of oil that's in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And we would eliminate 10 percent of our imports into this country.

(CROSSTALK)

MESERVE: You mentioned the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The vice president said, as he had before, this drilling can be done. It can be done in an environmentally safe way. Your response?

KENNEDY: If it could be done, it would be done now. In Prudo Bay, they're having spills on average of about one a day. It's the same group. It's the same technology that they're using there. He also said we're only going to disturb 2,000 acres. Actually, it's a lot more than that. But the acres that they're going to disturb are the centerpiece of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's the calving rest, the coastal plain, which is the calving grounds the caribou and for all the other animals that are up there, the denning ground for the polar bear. It's cutting the heart out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

MESERVE: Another issue that was touched on in this interview was whether or not the government should have power of eminent domain when it comes to construction of power lines and power plants. Your opinion on that?

KENNEDY: I don't believe so. I believe that the government already has the power with FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to build pipelines. And that's really what we ought to be doing. We ought to be concentrating on gas as a transition fuel, which builds clean power plants, not go back to coal, not go back to oil, not go to nuclear.

And then we have a tremendous opportunity in this country. Now the technology is out there for hydrogen fuel cells, with solar, with conservation, with all these renewables, that we can transform ourselves. And we can eliminate price shocks on the international oil market, our vulnerability to those. We can clean up our air.

And we can do those if we make a real investment in clean energy. The technology is there. People don't have to suffer.

MESERVE: The vice president shares your commitment to technology. He said that...

KENNEDY: Well, no he doesn't...

MESERVE: ... He said that ultimately that's the long-term solution. But he indicated he does not believe that at the present time current technology and conservation is going to cure the problem.

KENNEDY: ... Well, but clearly, they are walking away now from strong conservation opportunities. This week, they announced that they are going to abandon President Clinton's air conditioning standards. For example, those standards, which the industries, many of the industry leaders agreed to, would save this country the construction of 50 major power plants over the next five years.

And they're responding to the weakest links, the most radical elements of the Air Conditioning Manufacturing Association in order to lower those standards, which means more power plants. So although his rhetoric says, yeah, we're looking for more technology and we believe in technology, we have technology to build fuel efficient cars. Why doesn't the federal government press that rather than taking people's lands away for power plants?

Why don't we press air conditioning technology, which we also have, which the industry acknowledges it has? And Alana (ph), the second largest manufacturer, supports President Clinton's standards for air conditioners. If we really -- if this administration really did believe that technology could solve some of these problems, they have excellent opportunities right now to push those technologies.

And, in fact, you have to watch their feet, not their mouths. They are walking away from them.

MESERVE: Robert Kennedy, Jr. of the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, thanks for joining for this discussion from Los Angeles.

KENNEDY: Thanks for having me.

MESERVE: And now back to Atlanta.

KAGAN: Jeanne, thank you so much. A programming note here, if you missed John King's interview with Vice President Dick Cheney or you'd like to see it again, we will replay it in its entirety on CNN's "Inside Politics." That's at 5:00 p.m. Eastern, 2:00 p.m. Pacific. And you can learn more about what Mr. Cheney had to say on our web site. Hear portions of John King's interview with the vice president at CNN.com, AOL keyword CNN.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com