FILE Brad Pitt
Brad Pitt's foundation sues architect over New Orleans homes
CELEBRITIES
Sound Bite: Brad Pitt – “Benjamin Button” – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Well we were in New Orleans and I have such a love for that place, you’ll see it’s all over the film, and it was really a nice feeling for all of us, and it was right after the levee failure so it was at the time when the city was really trying to get off it’s knees again, so it was nice.
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' Premiere
INTERVIEW: Brad Pitt on the experience of filming in New Orleans, his housing project for displaced Hurricane Katrina residents at the 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' Premiere at Los Angeles CA. (Footage by WireImage Video/GettyImages)
Entertainment US Clinton Pitt - Brad Pritt gives Make it Right update at Clinton Global Initiative
NAME: US PITT 20090924E TAPE: EF09/0908 IN_TIME: 10:49:24:08 DURATION: 00:06:55:05 SOURCES: Clinton Global Initiative DATELINE: New York, 24 September 2009 RESTRICTIONS: SHOTLIST PLEASE NOTE: THIS ITEM IS 16X9 PLEASE NOTE: VIDEO HAS FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY Clinton Global Initiative New York, 24 September 2009 1.Wideshot of panel being seated 2. Midshot of panel moderator Melody Barnes 3. SOUND BITE (English) Bill Clinton/Former U.S. President "I think that climate change is real and let's just take New Orleans. It's important to me. It's the first big city I ever visited when I was 4-years-old. It's culturally and historically unique in America. New Orleans is one of the cities that if we don't do something about global warming we will render irrelevant within 50 years everything that Brad Pitt's done because you're going to have more than 100 million people worldwide that are gonna have to be moved out of low-lying cities on waterways because of the rising water levels." Clinton Global Initiative 4. Clip- Make it Right video Clinton Global Initiative New York, 24 September 2009 5. SOUND BITE (English) Brad Pitt/Actor & Founder, Make it Right "I'd just like to say it's a privilege to be here. It's my third time here at the Clinton Global Initiative. I learn something every time and President Clinton has created a forum where we can come together and share our ideas and innovations and get inspired by each other and applaud each other for our commitments. I heard a stat today that since the creation of the initiative it has raised commitments totaling 46 billion dollars and that certainly has to have reshaped the world a little bit and it occurred to me that possibly the President's commitment was due a round of applause." 6. Midshot of Bill Clinton, left, and Brad Pitt, right, with NATSOUND of clapping 7. Midshot of Brad Pitt with NATSOUND of clapping Clinton Global Initiative 8. Clip- Make it Right video Clinton Global Initiative New York, 24 September 2009 9. SOUND BITE (English) Brad Pitt/Actor & Founder, Make it Right "I also have to thank the President because it was he who helped kick start us, the Make it Right foundation two years ago. I was here and we were about to make our announcement. I showed up rather dejected. I was suffering from what I call the fundraising blues. A few of you out there might have experienced the same when you are making the big sell and you're getting no love and uh I approached the President and I said, "Am I? Am I out of my mind? Is this futile is this too far reaching?" And he told me to stick with it, it's alright, basically to calm down, stick with it and we'll figure it out. And that has basically been our guiding rule since then and it has proved true to this moment and I thank you for that. The Bush-Clinton Katrina fund also came in and gave us a big support a big boost as well as our partner Steve Bing from the beginning and we would not be here without it and I thank you for that initial push." Clinton Global Initiative 10. Clip- Make it Right video Clinton Global Initiative New York, 24 September 2009 11. SOUND BITE (English) Brad Pitt/Actor & Founder, Make it Right "Now of someone had told us or shown us a list of all the problems we would endure it would've seemed to daunting and if we had not been so blissfully naïve to the potential we would not be experiencing what we're seeing today and that is the unquantifiable joy of families returning home to the ninth ward and returning home to something that is better than before. Returning home to something that's setting forth a new paradigm. Now the utility bills, the average utility bills of a "Make it Right" home so far are coming in at $35.00. Our best so far is $8.00. That was zero for electricity, $8.00 for administrative processing fees." Clinton Global Initiative 12. Clip- Make it Right video Clinton Global Initiative New York, 24 September 2009 13. SOUND BITE (English) Brad Pitt/Actor & Founder, Make it Right "The point I'm trying to make is that Make it Right has exceeded my expectations. Our criteria in the beginning were at odds to say the least. We were we demanded that these homes be sustainable. That they be that they have aesthetic qualities. Aesthetically ambitious. That they be storm resilient. Take safety in mind of the families that live there and that they would be affordable. I don't have to explain that these are diametrically opposed ideas and none of them got along with affordability. Affordability was our biggest challenge. Because of this criteria we were forced to re-evaluate from stage one our building practices, what components we used how we used them and I'm going to let Tom (Darden, Executive Director, Make it Right) go into the details because Tom is much more knowledgeable on the subject and what our guys found on the ground was inefficiency after inefficiency. Archaic practices that had just hadn't been questioned and as a result of that by the time this time next year when we put the lid on our 150th house that house will be built for the same price as any substandard house that's being built in New Orleans if not cheaper. And this is true. 14. Wideshot of panel STORYLINE BRAD PITT UPDATES PLAN TO MAKE IT RIGHT The average electric bill for one of the energy-efficient homes built in New Orleans by Brad Pitt's Make It Right foundation is $35 a month, the actor said Thursday (24 Sept. 2009) during an update on the project at the Clinton Global Initiative. The cost of building the homes also is dropping. And by the time all 150 promised homes are completed, the cost will be comparable to standard buildings, Pitt said. Pitt started the foundation in 2007. The program focuses home construction in a section of New Orleans heavily damaged when Hurricane Katrina struck in August 2005. The homes are being built with features including rooftop solar panels and energy-efficient appliances to help reduce electricity consumption. The Clinton Global Initiative, an annual event started by former President Bill Clinton, brings together the public and private sector to discuss solutions to problems in four areas - climate change, poverty, global health and education. For more information on Make It Right you can log onto www.makeitrightnola.org
Ellen DeGeneres and Brad Pitt in New Orleans, LA, on 3/11/2012 (Footage by WireImage Video/Getty Images Entertainment Video)
Ellen DeGeneres and Brad Pitt in New Orleans, LA, on 3/11/2012 (Footage by WireImage Video/Getty Images Entertainment Video)
FILE Brad Pitt
Brad Pitt foundation faces lawsuit over New Orleans homes
Entertainment: Elton John in NY - Elton John to write musical
TAPE: EF03/0414 IN_TIME: 21:02:17 DURATION: 5:26 SOURCES: APTN RESTRICTIONS: music/performance rights must be cleared DATELINE: New York City, USA. 6th May 2003 SHOTLIST APTN - New York City, USA. 6th May 2003 1. Ext The Hit Factory NY 2. Elton and Bernie Taupin posing RECORD COMPANY FOOTAGE 3. Clip - Elton John, Original Sin 4. Sot Bernie Taupin (English): As Elton just said for the last 10 years...to make a musical of...not rock opera...as Elton said it is very classically based 5. Tilt down copy of Anne Rice book "THE VAMPIRE LESTAT" 6. SOT Bernie Taupin (English) " The original idea for me...kind of daunting...I can't wait to get this started and...finish this off." 7. CA press 8. SOT Elton: This isn't Oklahoma...this is The Vampire Estat...I am really very pleased to be working with them... 9. SOT Bernie: " ...this is going to be very free of gothic cliches...on another kind of level...this is not going to be capes and coffins and crosses 10. SOT Elton : "Or tap dancing vampires." 11. SOT Bernie: "Or tap dancing vampires 12. WS Presser 13. SOT Elton: "She's (ANNE RICE) in New Orleans and she is very busy writing and she has heard the material...totally on her side...benchmark for her...I think we would like to do a musical that does justification to the subject matter involved." 14. CA press conference 15. SOT Elton: "We are hoping to have a read thru--- September...finished by the end of September" 16. CA press conference 17. SOT Elton: Interview with the Vampire is a unique book...I think the book is so beautifully written...it is a very visual book...screams out for me...this is I think" 18. CA press conference 19. SOT Elton: "My main concern is finding people who can sing these songs prooperly...you don't hire somebody who is normally on the broadway stage...an operatic voice...will have to have charisma and will have to sing really really well. 20. CA press conference 21. SOT Elton: "With this I am totally in vampire mode...when I am writing for garden homes my world is a vegetable patch...when I finish writing I go home and listen to the White STripes...everything goes back to normal 22. WS press conference RECORD COMPANY FOOTAGE 23. Clip video - 'Original Sin' ENDS ELTON JOHN TAKES ON BROADWAY WITH VAMPIRE MUSICAL SIR ELTON JOHN and his long-term collaborator BERNIE TAUPIN are taking on Broadway with a musical version of Anne Rice's vampire novels. The tentative title for the Broadway production is "The Vampire Lestat". The legendary songwriting team of Sir Elton and Taupin will unite to write the lyrics and musical for their first-ever Broadway production. The project marks Warner Bros Theater ventures' debut into Broadway production. It is slated to hit Broadway in 2005. Giant media conglomerate Disney has had remarkable success in theater. All three of their Broadway productions Beauty and The Beast, The Lion King and Aida are still running. Sir Elton has had experience composing for Broadway with The Lion King and AIDA but with Tim Rice as lyricist. During the press conference Sir Elton talked about a production without capes, crosses or tap-dancing vampires. The book (script for the bits that are not sung) is being written by Linda Woolverton, who wrote the stage version of "Beauty and the Beast," and it will be directed by Robert Jess Roth, who was nominated for a Tony award for his direction of that Disney production. The collaborators said the musical would be based on three Rice novels - "Interview With the Vampire," "The Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Damned" - with emphasis on the first two. (A movie version of "Queen of the Damned" came out last year, starring late singer Aaliyah as an ancient vampire. Neil Jordan's 1994 film version of "Interview With the Vampire" starred Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise.) John said the music he was composing was for an orchestra and would have no electronic components or other modern sounds, since the books' settings largely were from a couple of hundred years ago. "I didn't see where any modern music could possibly come in without sounding ridiculous," he said. When asked who could play Lestat, John said whoever it was would have to have charisma - but most importantly, would have to be able to sing. "My main concern is finding people who can sing the songs properly," he said. Broadway's last outing with vampires was the musical "Dance of the Vampires," based on the Roman Polanski movie, "The Fearless Vampire Killers." The production starring Michael Crawford closed in January after only 56 performances and a loss estimated at more than $12 million.
Ellen DeGeneres and Brad Pitt in New Orleans, LA, on 3/11/2012 (Footage by WireImage Video/Getty Images Entertainment Video)
Ellen DeGeneres and Brad Pitt in New Orleans, LA, on 3/11/2012 (Footage by WireImage Video/Getty Images Entertainment Video)
Entertainment: Elton John in NY - Elton John to write musical
TAPE: EF03/0418 IN_TIME: 05:52:32 DURATION: 5:26 SOURCES: APTN/Mercury Records RESTRICTIONS: music/performance rights must be cleared DATELINE: New York City, USA. 6th May 2003 SHOTLIST APTN - New York City, USA. 6th May 2003 1. Ext The Hit Factory NY 2. Elton and Bernie Taupin posing Mercury Records 3. Clip - Elton John, Original Sin 4. SOT Bernie Taupin (English): As Elton just said for the last 10 years we've been make a musical of , and I emphasize musical and not rock opera which this is definitely not." 5. Tilt down copy of Anne Rice book "THE VAMPIRE LESTAT" 6. SOT Bernie Taupin (English) " The original idea for me of getting involved with Broadway was kind of daunting but basically once I broke the ice it became absolutely invigorating and I can't wait to get this started and...finish this off." 7. CA press 8. SOT Elton: This isn't Oklahoma, this isn't Guys And Dolls, this isn't My Fair Lady this is The Vampire Estat and they have given Bernie and I and Rob an incredible amount of backing and encouragement and I am really very pleased to be working with them and this is... if we fail we will never work with them again." 9. SOT Bernie: "I think we need to emphasize that this is going to be a production that is very free of Gothic cliches, we are going to try and do this in a setting that puts the vampire in a much more human form where he deals with the pitfalls that humans do but on another kind of level. 12. WS Presser 13. SOT Elton: "She's (ANNE RICE) in New Orleans and she is very busy writing and she has heard the material that has been written so far, she's totally on our side and that's very important as far as I am concerned because this is a very personal book for her, a benchmark for her and something that she is profoundly proud of. I think we would like to do a musical that does justification to the subject matter involved." 14. CA press conference 15. SOT Elton: "We are hoping to have a read thru in November. I intend to have the whole thing finished by the end of September" 16. CA press conference 17. SOT Elton: Interview with the Vampire is a unique book, it made you at the end want to be a vampire which is an incredible thing. To most people vampires are scary and horrible. I think the book is so beautifully written, there are so many different areas in Paris and New Orleans and whatever, the different scenarios at the opera. It is a very visual book, it screams out for me that this is a good subject matter, some books aren't, this is I think" 18. CA press conference 19. SOT Elton: "My main concern is finding people who can sing these songs properly, you don't hire somebody who is normally on the broadway stage, you might have to go to someone with an operatic voice. Whoever has this role with have to have charisma and be able to sing really well." 20. CA press conference 21. SOT Elton: "With this I am totally in vampire mode and with what the outline of this looks like. When I am writing for garden homes my world is a vegetable patch. It doesn't really effect what I do and when I finish writing I go home and listen to the White Stripes...everything goes back to normal." 22. WS press conference Mercury Records 23. Clip video - 'Original Sin' ELTON JOHN TAKES ON BROADWAY WITH VAMPIRE MUSICAL SIR ELTON JOHN and his long-term collaborator BERNIE TAUPIN are taking on Broadway with a musical version of Anne Rice's vampire novels. The tentative title for the Broadway production is "The Vampire Lestat". The legendary songwriting team of Sir Elton and Taupin will unite to write the lyrics and musical for their first-ever Broadway production. The project marks Warner Bros Theater ventures' debut into Broadway production. It is slated to hit Broadway in 2005. Giant media conglomerate Disney has had remarkable success in theater. All three of their Broadway productions Beauty and The Beast, The Lion King and Aida are still running. Sir Elton has had experience composing for Broadway with The Lion King and AIDA but with Tim Rice as lyricist. During the press conference Sir Elton talked about a production without capes, crosses or tap-dancing vampires. The book (script for the bits that are not sung) is being written by Linda Woolverton, who wrote the stage version of "Beauty and the Beast," and it will be directed by Robert Jess Roth, who was nominated for a Tony award for his direction of that Disney production. The collaborators said the musical would be based on three Rice novels - "Interview With the Vampire," "The Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Damned" - with emphasis on the first two. (A movie version of "Queen of the Damned" came out last year, starring late singer Aaliyah as an ancient vampire. Neil Jordan's 1994 film version of "Interview With the Vampire" starred Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise.) John said the music he was composing was for an orchestra and would have no electronic components or other modern sounds, since the books' settings largely were from a couple of hundred years ago. "I didn't see where any modern music could possibly come in without sounding ridiculous," he said. When asked who could play Lestat, John said whoever it was would have to have charisma - but most importantly, would have to be able to sing. "My main concern is finding people who can sing the songs properly," he said. Broadway's last outing with vampires was the musical "Dance of the Vampires," based on the Roman Polanski movie, "The Fearless Vampire Killers." The production starring Michael Crawford closed in January after only 56 performances and a loss estimated at more than $12 million. CLEARANCE DETAILS TITLE: Original Sin ARTIST: Elton John WRITER: John / Taupin PUBLISHER: Warner Chappell LABEL: Mercury Records
ARCHIVE Brad Pitt
Judge: Brad Pitt, others can be sued over New Orleans homes
Brad Pitt in New Orleans, LA, on 3/11/2012 (Footage by WireImage Video/Getty Images Entertainment Video)
Brad Pitt in New Orleans, LA, on 3/11/2012 (Footage by WireImage Video/Getty Images Entertainment Video)
BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH
[BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH] [HANOVER, NH USA] FTG OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON'S (D-NY) HUSBAND BILL AND DAUGHTER CHELSEA SPEAKING AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE I don't understand why Lou Dobbs is against this and keeps calling this amnesty. A conservative ought to be for giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, because it's the only way of identifying who's in this country. So, for example, let's just -- suppose we said, OK, for the next six months, every undocumented immigrant can sign up and do what Hillary, Senator McCain -- he's the only Republican, I think, for this -- and most of our crowd says, let them -- you know, they have to move behind all the people who have legally applied for citizenship, take English classes, pay a small fine, and then they become eligible to be citizens. If 11,950,000 people sign up, it is much easier to find the terrorist needle in a haystack of 50,000 than in a haystack of 12 million. Someone ought to ask Tancredo and Lou Dobbs and all these people why they don't agree with that. They keep talking about amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. These people are here working, doing things. We need to know who's here. She favors that. She thinks it may be necessary to lift the quotas, to have higher quotas in some areas, and it is also then important, once you do all this, to really enforce the workplace laws, because there are places -- and we know them. We've got plenty of evidence on this. I live in a county where immigrants do jobs that other people wouldn't do and in a county where immigrants have been abused in the workplace so they could be paid less and American citizens wouldn't have to be paid more. In other words, I've seen both sides of this. And so it's very important that if we have immigration reform, we then go back and enforce the workplace laws. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of tension between people at the lower wage levels and ethnic tensions among African-Americans and Hispanics, for example, and others that we're not doing the right thing by the law. So we have to have a comprehensive solution and I think it's the fairest one. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) more diplomatic in its relations with other countries. So how do you reconcile that with Hillary's vote, I think in 2007, to declare Iran's national guard a terrorist organization? CLINTON: Oh, because I think it is. First, it is, as a factual matter. First, it is. And, secondly, we now know, we have evidence that keeping the economic heat on Iran works. The latest National Intelligence Estimate says they stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. You remember that? It just came out. And that they stopped it, in part, because they're trying to avoid economic sanctions. No serious person thought that that was any kind of a red light to attack Iran and I have evidence. Remember, who was the sponsor of the Iran legislation that Hillary voted for? Senator Carl Levin, who was also the sponsor of the anti-authorization Iraq bill. That is, there were two competing Iraq resolutions. One, contrary to popular belief, did not authorize the president to attack Iraq, regardless. It authorized the president to use force if Iraq flunked the sanctions, if they didn't cooperate. The other by Levin, who turned out to be prescient, said "I understand why you need the pressure to get him to cooperate, but I don't really trust the president. So he can't use force until he comes back. If they flunk the sanctions, tell him to come back to the Congress for an authorization to use force." So Levin -- that's where Levin's coming from. He never would have offered a resolution that would have been a backdoor way to justify an attack on Iran. It was just a question of whether you believe that a part of our diplomacy with Iran is tightening economic sanctions when they're doing things that are against our values and interest and against international law. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Hillary and anything she's said or done so far. CLINTON: I don't think it's changed her platform, but I think she'll have to run as the underdog for a while now, which is good. It ought to be hard to get to be president. It ought to be hard for everybody. It's good. I didn't win a -- I didn't win a single... (APPLAUSE) You know, and I didn't like it when people wrote up and acted like she was entitled to be nominated. She never did. As I told you, I told her a year ago, January a year ago, the nomination will be hard and you win the general election handily if you get nominated. I still believe that. But the real problem for us is I think it was a real disadvantage in New Hampshire because you get a 17-to-24 imbalance out of winning Iowa in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, I'd like to believe they're independent, but the truth is they're influenced by the news. And it was a really unfortunate development for her that New Hampshire moved its election to five days after Iowa. If you'd stayed further back, which would have put you closer to Nevada and South Carolina, I think that it would have been better for her, because I think she got the -- the election finally -- we had our first thing that resembled almost a real debate in the New Hampshire debate. It was the first time there were any distinctions drawn. It was, from my point of view, better than any of the ones we had before. But I think what she has to do is just to be fair, to get out there and keep running. Let me remind you -- and I think she's picked up a lot in the last two days. I can just feel it. But there's just only so much you can do against the tidal wave of listening. In New Hampshire-ites, as I said, you might think they're making independent judgments, but you can't help but be affected by the press. And I think that what she needs to do is to remember that this is a long process, and so do the others. I mean, I lost, I got murdered in Iowa, where I didn't even compete, because they had an Iowa Senator running. Then I lost New Hampshire, but I finished second. Then I lost Maine and finished third. Then I lost South Dakota and finished third. Then I lost in Colorado and finished second by a point. Then I lost in Maryland and finished second by a few points. I did not win -- and how many states have I gone through? Seven, six. My first victory was in Georgia. Then I won in South Carolina. Then I only lost in Connecticut from then on in. But even after months later, I lost a primary in Connecticut. So this is going to be a long process and you just have to be willing to -- if you believe you'd be the best president when you run, you know the outcome is uncertain, you'll have ups and downs, and you just have to believe it. But I think that the thing that I think she will regret that I always did is when you move out of the early states, you don't give as much time to do things like this, which I think are very good. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: Oh, that's very important. She said what else can we do to help New Orleans after Katrina. First of all, I work down there now with my foundation and we're trying to help the people like Brad Pitt's project build green houses and I've funded two schools that can be rebuilt as green schools. I'm trying to convince the people of New Orleans that if they made a serious commitment to be a completely green city, I could get them billions of dollars of investment, which I believe, and it would change things. So she has spent a lot of time down there independent of me and, in the beginning, they were just trying to get all the funds allocated. But there's still a lot of problems with the way the federal money that has already been appropriated has not been released and why. So the first thing I think she will do is to have somebody go down there, work with the city and the state, have a coordinator and figure out how to move this money in a way that is as quickly as possible, but maximally effective. In every disaster, this was true in the tsunami in South Asia, where I worked for two years with the U.N., in every disaster, the most difficult thing is getting people back in their housing. But it's too slow. So what she wants to do is to help them, but to also help them in ways that promotes sustainable development so we can develop a whole different sector of the New Orleans economy. Then she believes that we should have some effort to restore the wetlands, because keep in mind, when the water broke coming up that channel, if the wetlands south of New Orleans had been in the same condition they were 30 years earlier, the water would have been traveling at a speed half as fast and the gates might never have broken and most of the damage might never have been done. So she believes there needs to be a serious effort there. And then along the Gulf Coast, some of the barrier islands and sandbars have been severely eroded in front of the towns in Alabama and Mississippi, too, and she thinks that's an area of traditional federal responsibility, environmental restoration that we have not been sufficiently active in. QUESTION: You talked that Hillary Clinton polls very well in foreign countries, but most of those countries want money from us. And how do we know that Hillary Clinton isn't going to go to Washington and give away billions of our tax dollars? CLINTON: Well, the ones I mentioned are all countries that don't want any money from us. Europe and Canada we don't give foreign aid to. But for whatever it's worth, the United States gives the smallest percentage of its income in foreign aid of any wealthy country in the world. We give less than everybody else at a time when we know more than we have ever known about how to effectively give assistance to poor countries, which helps us and reduces future problems. If you educate people and you get rid of disease and you empower people economically in really poor countries, you make more friends and you have fewer wars in the future. It's as good thing to do. Since you mentioned it, I will tell you, again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think she is the only candidate that has recommended spending a few billion dollars to pay more than our fair share of putting the 130 million children in the world who never go to school into primary school, and you should support that. Why? Because one year of schooling in a poor country is worth 10 percent a year in extra income for life and because the world's population is now slated to grow from its current level of 6.5 billion to nine billion by mid-century. That's the same 40-year -- three-year period when all the rest of us are supposed to figure out how to reduce our greenhouse gases by 80 percent. It's going to be harder. The only thing we can do consistent with our values that unite people who are pro-choice and pro-life and all of that to stop that is to put all the girls of the world in school and give all the young women access to the labor market and it will cause... (APPLAUSE) ... I promise you, over a 20-year period, we'll save a fortune doing this. It will cause people to marry at later ages and to have their first children at later ages and to have smaller families and that will reduce dramatically the burden on the planet of managing this whole climate change thing. QUESTION: Recently, there's been a fair amount of discussion about what some say is undue influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington and how that negatively impacts the United States and, some people say, Israel, as well. How would Hillary -- would Hillary Clinton change that or continue? CLINTON: Well, I think, first, there are people who don't like Israel who always say that and it is true that we are a staunch ally of theirs and committed to their security. I think we make a mistake if we back every decision the Israeli government makes and that seemed to be President Bush's policy for a few years. But in fairness to them, they have reconvened the peace talks and they have shown some willingness to publicly pressure the Israelis not to expand settlements in the territories that will have to be given back to the Palestinians if we're ever going to have peace. I don't see it that way, though. I have to tell you, there's a reason that I made so much progress for seven years in peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's only because the United States -- because the Israelis believe that the United States cares profoundly whether we survive or not that we have the credibility with them to persuade them to make the concessions necessary to give the Palestinians a homeland and a decent life. I remember one time the president of one of the European countries called me after I left office and he said, "Tell me what I can do now in the Middle East." I said, "Well, we're old friends. Shall I tell you the truth or what you want to hear?" He said, "Tell me the truth." I said, "There's nothing you can do." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because the Israelis do not believe you care whether they live or die." And the United States has influence in the Middle East and can stand up for the Palestinians because the Israelis believe that we care whether they live or die. And so I think that it's important for us to be able to disagree with particular decisions of the Israeli government, but our security relationship with them and our commitment to them is what gives us a chance to make a deal for the Palestinians, and we have to do it. It should have been done already, but we've got a better chance now because all of the Sunni Arab states desperately want peace with Israel. They desperately want a political, military and security partnership with them, because they're more worried about Iran and they don't need the Israelis as a whipping boy to jump up in their own population anymore. So I agree with you, we have to be sensitive about this, but I just don't agree with that, the general idea that the United States government is in the hip pocket of the Israeli lobby. I think that Harry Truman was the first world leader to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. Israel was created by the United Nations and, therefore, even though the U.N. is often against Israel's political positions, they, too, have a right to exist. And the fact that we are prepared to protect that right gives us a leverage that we ought to use and we should use always, we should have been using in the years when President Bush got out of it, to push for peace and a fair deal for the Palestinians. They have been the most abused people on earth by their own leaders and by the other Arabs and, on occasion, by the Israelis, as well. Nobody's given them a break and we need to. Yes, the gentleman in the green suit, and then I've got to quit. I got a note here that says "Take another question and tell everyone you're going to Thayer Dining Hall to see all the people that couldn't get in here." QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality. For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama. CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day. But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor from the beginning, always, always, always." First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way. Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since." Give me a break. (APPLAUSE) This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa. But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. (APPLAUSE) Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject. (LAUGHTER) Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: He said there's a problem with ethanol because you always have pesticide runoffs and some people believe it's not a net positive in carbon emissions. Actually, I've ready every bit of the data I can on this, because I'm, as I told you, heavily involved in this. I believe it is a net positive, but not a very good one. It's about two-to-one net. The United States would be far better off, even the corn farmers in the middle west would be better off producing ethanol from cellulosic substances. That is, basically, the residue from harvesting crops, switch grass, fast growing willows in upstate New York and other places, any kind of organic material. That will produce four gallons of ethanol for every one gallon of gasoline. The problem is you have to use an enzyme process to turn the organic material into a sugar-like substance to make it into ethanol and the enzyme conversion process is more than twice as expensive today. But you're right, if, like -- let's take all these Iowa ethanol plants that have been built, for example. They can all be converted to cellulosic ethanol and they're even beginning to build them now there. If you do that, what will happen is it will moderate corn prices, which will be good. You will plant more wheat, which will good, and more land will be put into conservation reserve, which will be good. But there are tradeoffs here that we're going to have to work through all over the world. The best ethanol in the world for conversion purposes is Brazilian sugar cane. It's eight gallons of ethanol for every one gallon, but the demand for it has gotten so high now, they're taking down land in the Atlantic rain forest, not in Amazonia, but in the Atlantic rain forest, which is terrible because it undermines the biodiversity of the planet and tropical rain forests absorb far more greenhouse gases that forests in New Hampshire, we know, the closer you get. So it's something that we're all just going to have to work through and it may be that there'll have to be some legislation on this at some point, but we are so far from where we need to be, I think that the thing we should work on and one of the things Hillary has proposed is that we increase the tax differential for cellulosic ethanol and increase the research budget to get the cost down so that we make it economical now to do. If we do that, I think that would address a lot of your concerns. The other thing is that until we get to a hydrogen vehicle, and I've actually been in one, but we can't make them for less than quarter of a million bucks, they're safe now and they're good and you can run in them, but the best thing we can do is to move as quickly as possible to electric plug-in hybrids, which would use biofuels and electricity. How many people have a hybrid vehicle here, anybody? Well, you can drive it to 25 or 30 miles an hour on the battery and then it switches to gas. So they'll get -- like, I've got a mini-SUV that we drive around, it's about 40 miles to the gallon in the city. Once you get a battery that is strong enough to last all day, that will drive it at 60 miles a gallon, then you're getting 100 miles a gallon. If you get to 50 miles a gallon, then you're not probably going to get to 100 miles a gallon. There are several of these experimental vehicles now being driven in the United States getting 100 miles a gallon and you bring them in at night and plug them in and it's all you have to do. That's really where we ought to go. The problem is the lithium batteries are very powerful, but we haven't figured out how to produce them at a cost where you can afford to buy the cars. But we'll get there pretty soon. That I think is the biggest, best near-term solution and it's very important. Keep in mind, 70 percent of all the oil in this country is used for transportation and you don't need any of it to get around. Next time you get in the car, you remember that. The only place we need oils today is to fly around in jet airplanes. Nobody's figured out how to lift a heavy airplane off the ground and fly it a long way at a fast speed without jet diesel fuel. Every other use of oil to move is optional. So we need to do more rail, more fast rail. We need to do more electric hybrid. We need to move to all this. But there's so little of this ethanol production now, it's not a problem, but if that became our main source of clean fuels, it would be a real problem. And so what you're basically doing is raising a warning flag that should move us into the cellulosic ethanol and into the electric hybrid vehicles as soon as possible. I'm sorry, I've got to go. Thank you. I hope you'll vote for Hillary tomorrow. Thanks. (APPLAUSE) END
US LA Hurricane Ida New Orleans
US LA Hurricane Ida New Orleans
BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH
[BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH] [HANOVER, NH USA] FTG OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON'S (D-NY) HUSBAND BILL AND DAUGHTER CHELSEA SPEAKING AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE I don't understand why Lou Dobbs is against this and keeps calling this amnesty. A conservative ought to be for giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, because it's the only way of identifying who's in this country. So, for example, let's just -- suppose we said, OK, for the next six months, every undocumented immigrant can sign up and do what Hillary, Senator McCain -- he's the only Republican, I think, for this -- and most of our crowd says, let them -- you know, they have to move behind all the people who have legally applied for citizenship, take English classes, pay a small fine, and then they become eligible to be citizens. If 11,950,000 people sign up, it is much easier to find the terrorist needle in a haystack of 50,000 than in a haystack of 12 million. Someone ought to ask Tancredo and Lou Dobbs and all these people why they don't agree with that. They keep talking about amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. These people are here working, doing things. We need to know who's here. She favors that. She thinks it may be necessary to lift the quotas, to have higher quotas in some areas, and it is also then important, once you do all this, to really enforce the workplace laws, because there are places -- and we know them. We've got plenty of evidence on this. I live in a county where immigrants do jobs that other people wouldn't do and in a county where immigrants have been abused in the workplace so they could be paid less and American citizens wouldn't have to be paid more. In other words, I've seen both sides of this. And so it's very important that if we have immigration reform, we then go back and enforce the workplace laws. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of tension between people at the lower wage levels and ethnic tensions among African-Americans and Hispanics, for example, and others that we're not doing the right thing by the law. So we have to have a comprehensive solution and I think it's the fairest one. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) more diplomatic in its relations with other countries. So how do you reconcile that with Hillary's vote, I think in 2007, to declare Iran's national guard a terrorist organization? CLINTON: Oh, because I think it is. First, it is, as a factual matter. First, it is. And, secondly, we now know, we have evidence that keeping the economic heat on Iran works. The latest National Intelligence Estimate says they stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. You remember that? It just came out. And that they stopped it, in part, because they're trying to avoid economic sanctions. No serious person thought that that was any kind of a red light to attack Iran and I have evidence. Remember, who was the sponsor of the Iran legislation that Hillary voted for? Senator Carl Levin, who was also the sponsor of the anti-authorization Iraq bill. That is, there were two competing Iraq resolutions. One, contrary to popular belief, did not authorize the president to attack Iraq, regardless. It authorized the president to use force if Iraq flunked the sanctions, if they didn't cooperate. The other by Levin, who turned out to be prescient, said "I understand why you need the pressure to get him to cooperate, but I don't really trust the president. So he can't use force until he comes back. If they flunk the sanctions, tell him to come back to the Congress for an authorization to use force." So Levin -- that's where Levin's coming from. He never would have offered a resolution that would have been a backdoor way to justify an attack on Iran. It was just a question of whether you believe that a part of our diplomacy with Iran is tightening economic sanctions when they're doing things that are against our values and interest and against international law. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Hillary and anything she's said or done so far. CLINTON: I don't think it's changed her platform, but I think she'll have to run as the underdog for a while now, which is good. It ought to be hard to get to be president. It ought to be hard for everybody. It's good. I didn't win a -- I didn't win a single... (APPLAUSE) You know, and I didn't like it when people wrote up and acted like she was entitled to be nominated. She never did. As I told you, I told her a year ago, January a year ago, the nomination will be hard and you win the general election handily if you get nominated. I still believe that. But the real problem for us is I think it was a real disadvantage in New Hampshire because you get a 17-to-24 imbalance out of winning Iowa in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, I'd like to believe they're independent, but the truth is they're influenced by the news. And it was a really unfortunate development for her that New Hampshire moved its election to five days after Iowa. If you'd stayed further back, which would have put you closer to Nevada and South Carolina, I think that it would have been better for her, because I think she got the -- the election finally -- we had our first thing that resembled almost a real debate in the New Hampshire debate. It was the first time there were any distinctions drawn. It was, from my point of view, better than any of the ones we had before. But I think what she has to do is just to be fair, to get out there and keep running. Let me remind you -- and I think she's picked up a lot in the last two days. I can just feel it. But there's just only so much you can do against the tidal wave of listening. In New Hampshire-ites, as I said, you might think they're making independent judgments, but you can't help but be affected by the press. And I think that what she needs to do is to remember that this is a long process, and so do the others. I mean, I lost, I got murdered in Iowa, where I didn't even compete, because they had an Iowa Senator running. Then I lost New Hampshire, but I finished second. Then I lost Maine and finished third. Then I lost South Dakota and finished third. Then I lost in Colorado and finished second by a point. Then I lost in Maryland and finished second by a few points. I did not win -- and how many states have I gone through? Seven, six. My first victory was in Georgia. Then I won in South Carolina. Then I only lost in Connecticut from then on in. But even after months later, I lost a primary in Connecticut. So this is going to be a long process and you just have to be willing to -- if you believe you'd be the best president when you run, you know the outcome is uncertain, you'll have ups and downs, and you just have to believe it. But I think that the thing that I think she will regret that I always did is when you move out of the early states, you don't give as much time to do things like this, which I think are very good. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: Oh, that's very important. She said what else can we do to help New Orleans after Katrina. First of all, I work down there now with my foundation and we're trying to help the people like Brad Pitt's project build green houses and I've funded two schools that can be rebuilt as green schools. I'm trying to convince the people of New Orleans that if they made a serious commitment to be a completely green city, I could get them billions of dollars of investment, which I believe, and it would change things. So she has spent a lot of time down there independent of me and, in the beginning, they were just trying to get all the funds allocated. But there's still a lot of problems with the way the federal money that has already been appropriated has not been released and why. So the first thing I think she will do is to have somebody go down there, work with the city and the state, have a coordinator and figure out how to move this money in a way that is as quickly as possible, but maximally effective. In every disaster, this was true in the tsunami in South Asia, where I worked for two years with the U.N., in every disaster, the most difficult thing is getting people back in their housing. But it's too slow. So what she wants to do is to help them, but to also help them in ways that promotes sustainable development so we can develop a whole different sector of the New Orleans economy. Then she believes that we should have some effort to restore the wetlands, because keep in mind, when the water broke coming up that channel, if the wetlands south of New Orleans had been in the same condition they were 30 years earlier, the water would have been traveling at a speed half as fast and the gates might never have broken and most of the damage might never have been done. So she believes there needs to be a serious effort there. And then along the Gulf Coast, some of the barrier islands and sandbars have been severely eroded in front of the towns in Alabama and Mississippi, too, and she thinks that's an area of traditional federal responsibility, environmental restoration that we have not been sufficiently active in. QUESTION: You talked that Hillary Clinton polls very well in foreign countries, but most of those countries want money from us. And how do we know that Hillary Clinton isn't going to go to Washington and give away billions of our tax dollars? CLINTON: Well, the ones I mentioned are all countries that don't want any money from us. Europe and Canada we don't give foreign aid to. But for whatever it's worth, the United States gives the smallest percentage of its income in foreign aid of any wealthy country in the world. We give less than everybody else at a time when we know more than we have ever known about how to effectively give assistance to poor countries, which helps us and reduces future problems. If you educate people and you get rid of disease and you empower people economically in really poor countries, you make more friends and you have fewer wars in the future. It's as good thing to do. Since you mentioned it, I will tell you, again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think she is the only candidate that has recommended spending a few billion dollars to pay more than our fair share of putting the 130 million children in the world who never go to school into primary school, and you should support that. Why? Because one year of schooling in a poor country is worth 10 percent a year in extra income for life and because the world's population is now slated to grow from its current level of 6.5 billion to nine billion by mid-century. That's the same 40-year -- three-year period when all the rest of us are supposed to figure out how to reduce our greenhouse gases by 80 percent. It's going to be harder. The only thing we can do consistent with our values that unite people who are pro-choice and pro-life and all of that to stop that is to put all the girls of the world in school and give all the young women access to the labor market and it will cause... (APPLAUSE) ... I promise you, over a 20-year period, we'll save a fortune doing this. It will cause people to marry at later ages and to have their first children at later ages and to have smaller families and that will reduce dramatically the burden on the planet of managing this whole climate change thing. QUESTION: Recently, there's been a fair amount of discussion about what some say is undue influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington and how that negatively impacts the United States and, some people say, Israel, as well. How would Hillary -- would Hillary Clinton change that or continue? CLINTON: Well, I think, first, there are people who don't like Israel who always say that and it is true that we are a staunch ally of theirs and committed to their security. I think we make a mistake if we back every decision the Israeli government makes and that seemed to be President Bush's policy for a few years. But in fairness to them, they have reconvened the peace talks and they have shown some willingness to publicly pressure the Israelis not to expand settlements in the territories that will have to be given back to the Palestinians if we're ever going to have peace. I don't see it that way, though. I have to tell you, there's a reason that I made so much progress for seven years in peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's only because the United States -- because the Israelis believe that the United States cares profoundly whether we survive or not that we have the credibility with them to persuade them to make the concessions necessary to give the Palestinians a homeland and a decent life. I remember one time the president of one of the European countries called me after I left office and he said, "Tell me what I can do now in the Middle East." I said, "Well, we're old friends. Shall I tell you the truth or what you want to hear?" He said, "Tell me the truth." I said, "There's nothing you can do." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because the Israelis do not believe you care whether they live or die." And the United States has influence in the Middle East and can stand up for the Palestinians because the Israelis believe that we care whether they live or die. And so I think that it's important for us to be able to disagree with particular decisions of the Israeli government, but our security relationship with them and our commitment to them is what gives us a chance to make a deal for the Palestinians, and we have to do it. It should have been done already, but we've got a better chance now because all of the Sunni Arab states desperately want peace with Israel. They desperately want a political, military and security partnership with them, because they're more worried about Iran and they don't need the Israelis as a whipping boy to jump up in their own population anymore. So I agree with you, we have to be sensitive about this, but I just don't agree with that, the general idea that the United States government is in the hip pocket of the Israeli lobby. I think that Harry Truman was the first world leader to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. Israel was created by the United Nations and, therefore, even though the U.N. is often against Israel's political positions, they, too, have a right to exist. And the fact that we are prepared to protect that right gives us a leverage that we ought to use and we should use always, we should have been using in the years when President Bush got out of it, to push for peace and a fair deal for the Palestinians. They have been the most abused people on earth by their own leaders and by the other Arabs and, on occasion, by the Israelis, as well. Nobody's given them a break and we need to. Yes, the gentleman in the green suit, and then I've got to quit. I got a note here that says "Take another question and tell everyone you're going to Thayer Dining Hall to see all the people that couldn't get in here." QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality. For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama. CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day. But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor from the beginning, always, always, always." First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way. Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since." Give me a break. (APPLAUSE) This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa. But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. (APPLAUSE) Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject. (LAUGHTER) Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: He said there's a problem with ethanol because you always have pesticide runoffs and some people believe it's not a net positive in carbon emissions. Actually, I've ready every bit of the data I can on this, because I'm, as I told you, heavily involved in this. I believe it is a net positive, but not a very good one. It's about two-to-one net. The United States would be far better off, even the corn farmers in the middle west would be better off producing ethanol from cellulosic substances. That is, basically, the residue from harvesting crops, switch grass, fast growing willows in upstate New York and other places, any kind of organic material. That will produce four gallons of ethanol for every one gallon of gasoline. The problem is you have to use an enzyme process to turn the organic material into a sugar-like substance to make it into ethanol and the enzyme conversion process is more than twice as expensive today. But you're right, if, like -- let's take all these Iowa ethanol plants that have been built, for example. They can all be converted to cellulosic ethanol and they're even beginning to build them now there. If you do that, what will happen is it will moderate corn prices, which will be good. You will plant more wheat, which will good, and more land will be put into conservation reserve, which will be good. But there are tradeoffs here that we're going to have to work through all over the world. The best ethanol in the world for conversion purposes is Brazilian sugar cane. It's eight gallons of ethanol for every one gallon, but the demand for it has gotten so high now, they're taking down land in the Atlantic rain forest, not in Amazonia, but in the Atlantic rain forest, which is terrible because it undermines the biodiversity of the planet and tropical rain forests absorb far more greenhouse gases that forests in New Hampshire, we know, the closer you get. So it's something that we're all just going to have to work through and it may be that there'll have to be some legislation on this at some point, but we are so far from where we need to be, I think that the thing we should work on and one of the things Hillary has proposed is that we increase the tax differential for cellulosic ethanol and increase the research budget to get the cost down so that we make it economical now to do. If we do that, I think that would address a lot of your concerns. The other thing is that until we get to a hydrogen vehicle, and I've actually been in one, but we can't make them for less than quarter of a million bucks, they're safe now and they're good and you can run in them, but the best thing we can do is to move as quickly as possible to electric plug-in hybrids, which would use biofuels and electricity. How many people have a hybrid vehicle here, anybody? Well, you can drive it to 25 or 30 miles an hour on the battery and then it switches to gas. So they'll get -- like, I've got a mini-SUV that we drive around, it's about 40 miles to the gallon in the city. Once you get a battery that is strong enough to last all day, that will drive it at 60 miles a gallon, then you're getting 100 miles a gallon. If you get to 50 miles a gallon, then you're not probably going to get to 100 miles a gallon. There are several of these experimental vehicles now being driven in the United States getting 100 miles a gallon and you bring them in at night and plug them in and it's all you have to do. That's really where we ought to go. The problem is the lithium batteries are very powerful, but we haven't figured out how to produce them at a cost where you can afford to buy the cars. But we'll get there pretty soon. That I think is the biggest, best near-term solution and it's very important. Keep in mind, 70 percent of all the oil in this country is used for transportation and you don't need any of it to get around. Next time you get in the car, you remember that. The only place we need oils today is to fly around in jet airplanes. Nobody's figured out how to lift a heavy airplane off the ground and fly it a long way at a fast speed without jet diesel fuel. Every other use of oil to move is optional. So we need to do more rail, more fast rail. We need to do more electric hybrid. We need to move to all this. But there's so little of this ethanol production now, it's not a problem, but if that became our main source of clean fuels, it would be a real problem. And so what you're basically doing is raising a warning flag that should move us into the cellulosic ethanol and into the electric hybrid vehicles as soon as possible. I'm sorry, I've got to go. Thank you. I hope you'll vote for Hillary tomorrow. Thanks. (APPLAUSE) END
Brad Pitt in New Orleans, LA, on 3/11/2012 (Footage by WireImage Video/Getty Images Entertainment Video)
Brad Pitt in New Orleans, LA, on 3/11/2012 (Footage by WireImage Video/Getty Images Entertainment Video)
Actor Brad Pitt delivers a press conference about rebuilding New Orleans.
Actor Brad Pitt delivers a press conference about rebuilding New Orleans.
BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH
[BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH] [HANOVER, NH USA] FTG OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON'S (D-NY) HUSBAND BILL AND DAUGHTER CHELSEA SPEAKING AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE I don't understand why Lou Dobbs is against this and keeps calling this amnesty. A conservative ought to be for giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, because it's the only way of identifying who's in this country. So, for example, let's just -- suppose we said, OK, for the next six months, every undocumented immigrant can sign up and do what Hillary, Senator McCain -- he's the only Republican, I think, for this -- and most of our crowd says, let them -- you know, they have to move behind all the people who have legally applied for citizenship, take English classes, pay a small fine, and then they become eligible to be citizens. If 11,950,000 people sign up, it is much easier to find the terrorist needle in a haystack of 50,000 than in a haystack of 12 million. Someone ought to ask Tancredo and Lou Dobbs and all these people why they don't agree with that. They keep talking about amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. These people are here working, doing things. We need to know who's here. She favors that. She thinks it may be necessary to lift the quotas, to have higher quotas in some areas, and it is also then important, once you do all this, to really enforce the workplace laws, because there are places -- and we know them. We've got plenty of evidence on this. I live in a county where immigrants do jobs that other people wouldn't do and in a county where immigrants have been abused in the workplace so they could be paid less and American citizens wouldn't have to be paid more. In other words, I've seen both sides of this. And so it's very important that if we have immigration reform, we then go back and enforce the workplace laws. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of tension between people at the lower wage levels and ethnic tensions among African-Americans and Hispanics, for example, and others that we're not doing the right thing by the law. So we have to have a comprehensive solution and I think it's the fairest one. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) more diplomatic in its relations with other countries. So how do you reconcile that with Hillary's vote, I think in 2007, to declare Iran's national guard a terrorist organization? CLINTON: Oh, because I think it is. First, it is, as a factual matter. First, it is. And, secondly, we now know, we have evidence that keeping the economic heat on Iran works. The latest National Intelligence Estimate says they stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. You remember that? It just came out. And that they stopped it, in part, because they're trying to avoid economic sanctions. No serious person thought that that was any kind of a red light to attack Iran and I have evidence. Remember, who was the sponsor of the Iran legislation that Hillary voted for? Senator Carl Levin, who was also the sponsor of the anti-authorization Iraq bill. That is, there were two competing Iraq resolutions. One, contrary to popular belief, did not authorize the president to attack Iraq, regardless. It authorized the president to use force if Iraq flunked the sanctions, if they didn't cooperate. The other by Levin, who turned out to be prescient, said "I understand why you need the pressure to get him to cooperate, but I don't really trust the president. So he can't use force until he comes back. If they flunk the sanctions, tell him to come back to the Congress for an authorization to use force." So Levin -- that's where Levin's coming from. He never would have offered a resolution that would have been a backdoor way to justify an attack on Iran. It was just a question of whether you believe that a part of our diplomacy with Iran is tightening economic sanctions when they're doing things that are against our values and interest and against international law. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Hillary and anything she's said or done so far. CLINTON: I don't think it's changed her platform, but I think she'll have to run as the underdog for a while now, which is good. It ought to be hard to get to be president. It ought to be hard for everybody. It's good. I didn't win a -- I didn't win a single... (APPLAUSE) You know, and I didn't like it when people wrote up and acted like she was entitled to be nominated. She never did. As I told you, I told her a year ago, January a year ago, the nomination will be hard and you win the general election handily if you get nominated. I still believe that. But the real problem for us is I think it was a real disadvantage in New Hampshire because you get a 17-to-24 imbalance out of winning Iowa in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, I'd like to believe they're independent, but the truth is they're influenced by the news. And it was a really unfortunate development for her that New Hampshire moved its election to five days after Iowa. If you'd stayed further back, which would have put you closer to Nevada and South Carolina, I think that it would have been better for her, because I think she got the -- the election finally -- we had our first thing that resembled almost a real debate in the New Hampshire debate. It was the first time there were any distinctions drawn. It was, from my point of view, better than any of the ones we had before. But I think what she has to do is just to be fair, to get out there and keep running. Let me remind you -- and I think she's picked up a lot in the last two days. I can just feel it. But there's just only so much you can do against the tidal wave of listening. In New Hampshire-ites, as I said, you might think they're making independent judgments, but you can't help but be affected by the press. And I think that what she needs to do is to remember that this is a long process, and so do the others. I mean, I lost, I got murdered in Iowa, where I didn't even compete, because they had an Iowa Senator running. Then I lost New Hampshire, but I finished second. Then I lost Maine and finished third. Then I lost South Dakota and finished third. Then I lost in Colorado and finished second by a point. Then I lost in Maryland and finished second by a few points. I did not win -- and how many states have I gone through? Seven, six. My first victory was in Georgia. Then I won in South Carolina. Then I only lost in Connecticut from then on in. But even after months later, I lost a primary in Connecticut. So this is going to be a long process and you just have to be willing to -- if you believe you'd be the best president when you run, you know the outcome is uncertain, you'll have ups and downs, and you just have to believe it. But I think that the thing that I think she will regret that I always did is when you move out of the early states, you don't give as much time to do things like this, which I think are very good. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: Oh, that's very important. She said what else can we do to help New Orleans after Katrina. First of all, I work down there now with my foundation and we're trying to help the people like Brad Pitt's project build green houses and I've funded two schools that can be rebuilt as green schools. I'm trying to convince the people of New Orleans that if they made a serious commitment to be a completely green city, I could get them billions of dollars of investment, which I believe, and it would change things. So she has spent a lot of time down there independent of me and, in the beginning, they were just trying to get all the funds allocated. But there's still a lot of problems with the way the federal money that has already been appropriated has not been released and why. So the first thing I think she will do is to have somebody go down there, work with the city and the state, have a coordinator and figure out how to move this money in a way that is as quickly as possible, but maximally effective. In every disaster, this was true in the tsunami in South Asia, where I worked for two years with the U.N., in every disaster, the most difficult thing is getting people back in their housing. But it's too slow. So what she wants to do is to help them, but to also help them in ways that promotes sustainable development so we can develop a whole different sector of the New Orleans economy. Then she believes that we should have some effort to restore the wetlands, because keep in mind, when the water broke coming up that channel, if the wetlands south of New Orleans had been in the same condition they were 30 years earlier, the water would have been traveling at a speed half as fast and the gates might never have broken and most of the damage might never have been done. So she believes there needs to be a serious effort there. And then along the Gulf Coast, some of the barrier islands and sandbars have been severely eroded in front of the towns in Alabama and Mississippi, too, and she thinks that's an area of traditional federal responsibility, environmental restoration that we have not been sufficiently active in. QUESTION: You talked that Hillary Clinton polls very well in foreign countries, but most of those countries want money from us. And how do we know that Hillary Clinton isn't going to go to Washington and give away billions of our tax dollars? CLINTON: Well, the ones I mentioned are all countries that don't want any money from us. Europe and Canada we don't give foreign aid to. But for whatever it's worth, the United States gives the smallest percentage of its income in foreign aid of any wealthy country in the world. We give less than everybody else at a time when we know more than we have ever known about how to effectively give assistance to poor countries, which helps us and reduces future problems. If you educate people and you get rid of disease and you empower people economically in really poor countries, you make more friends and you have fewer wars in the future. It's as good thing to do. Since you mentioned it, I will tell you, again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think she is the only candidate that has recommended spending a few billion dollars to pay more than our fair share of putting the 130 million children in the world who never go to school into primary school, and you should support that. Why? Because one year of schooling in a poor country is worth 10 percent a year in extra income for life and because the world's population is now slated to grow from its current level of 6.5 billion to nine billion by mid-century. That's the same 40-year -- three-year period when all the rest of us are supposed to figure out how to reduce our greenhouse gases by 80 percent. It's going to be harder. The only thing we can do consistent with our values that unite people who are pro-choice and pro-life and all of that to stop that is to put all the girls of the world in school and give all the young women access to the labor market and it will cause... (APPLAUSE) ... I promise you, over a 20-year period, we'll save a fortune doing this. It will cause people to marry at later ages and to have their first children at later ages and to have smaller families and that will reduce dramatically the burden on the planet of managing this whole climate change thing. QUESTION: Recently, there's been a fair amount of discussion about what some say is undue influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington and how that negatively impacts the United States and, some people say, Israel, as well. How would Hillary -- would Hillary Clinton change that or continue? CLINTON: Well, I think, first, there are people who don't like Israel who always say that and it is true that we are a staunch ally of theirs and committed to their security. I think we make a mistake if we back every decision the Israeli government makes and that seemed to be President Bush's policy for a few years. But in fairness to them, they have reconvened the peace talks and they have shown some willingness to publicly pressure the Israelis not to expand settlements in the territories that will have to be given back to the Palestinians if we're ever going to have peace. I don't see it that way, though. I have to tell you, there's a reason that I made so much progress for seven years in peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's only because the United States -- because the Israelis believe that the United States cares profoundly whether we survive or not that we have the credibility with them to persuade them to make the concessions necessary to give the Palestinians a homeland and a decent life. I remember one time the president of one of the European countries called me after I left office and he said, "Tell me what I can do now in the Middle East." I said, "Well, we're old friends. Shall I tell you the truth or what you want to hear?" He said, "Tell me the truth." I said, "There's nothing you can do." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because the Israelis do not believe you care whether they live or die." And the United States has influence in the Middle East and can stand up for the Palestinians because the Israelis believe that we care whether they live or die. And so I think that it's important for us to be able to disagree with particular decisions of the Israeli government, but our security relationship with them and our commitment to them is what gives us a chance to make a deal for the Palestinians, and we have to do it. It should have been done already, but we've got a better chance now because all of the Sunni Arab states desperately want peace with Israel. They desperately want a political, military and security partnership with them, because they're more worried about Iran and they don't need the Israelis as a whipping boy to jump up in their own population anymore. So I agree with you, we have to be sensitive about this, but I just don't agree with that, the general idea that the United States government is in the hip pocket of the Israeli lobby. I think that Harry Truman was the first world leader to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. Israel was created by the United Nations and, therefore, even though the U.N. is often against Israel's political positions, they, too, have a right to exist. And the fact that we are prepared to protect that right gives us a leverage that we ought to use and we should use always, we should have been using in the years when President Bush got out of it, to push for peace and a fair deal for the Palestinians. They have been the most abused people on earth by their own leaders and by the other Arabs and, on occasion, by the Israelis, as well. Nobody's given them a break and we need to. Yes, the gentleman in the green suit, and then I've got to quit. I got a note here that says "Take another question and tell everyone you're going to Thayer Dining Hall to see all the people that couldn't get in here." QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality. For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama. CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day. But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor from the beginning, always, always, always." First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way. Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since." Give me a break. (APPLAUSE) This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa. But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. (APPLAUSE) Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject. (LAUGHTER) Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: He said there's a problem with ethanol because you always have pesticide runoffs and some people believe it's not a net positive in carbon emissions. Actually, I've ready every bit of the data I can on this, because I'm, as I told you, heavily involved in this. I believe it is a net positive, but not a very good one. It's about two-to-one net. The United States would be far better off, even the corn farmers in the middle west would be better off producing ethanol from cellulosic substances. That is, basically, the residue from harvesting crops, switch grass, fast growing willows in upstate New York and other places, any kind of organic material. That will produce four gallons of ethanol for every one gallon of gasoline. The problem is you have to use an enzyme process to turn the organic material into a sugar-like substance to make it into ethanol and the enzyme conversion process is more than twice as expensive today. But you're right, if, like -- let's take all these Iowa ethanol plants that have been built, for example. They can all be converted to cellulosic ethanol and they're even beginning to build them now there. If you do that, what will happen is it will moderate corn prices, which will be good. You will plant more wheat, which will good, and more land will be put into conservation reserve, which will be good. But there are tradeoffs here that we're going to have to work through all over the world. The best ethanol in the world for conversion purposes is Brazilian sugar cane. It's eight gallons of ethanol for every one gallon, but the demand for it has gotten so high now, they're taking down land in the Atlantic rain forest, not in Amazonia, but in the Atlantic rain forest, which is terrible because it undermines the biodiversity of the planet and tropical rain forests absorb far more greenhouse gases that forests in New Hampshire, we know, the closer you get. So it's something that we're all just going to have to work through and it may be that there'll have to be some legislation on this at some point, but we are so far from where we need to be, I think that the thing we should work on and one of the things Hillary has proposed is that we increase the tax differential for cellulosic ethanol and increase the research budget to get the cost down so that we make it economical now to do. If we do that, I think that would address a lot of your concerns. The other thing is that until we get to a hydrogen vehicle, and I've actually been in one, but we can't make them for less than quarter of a million bucks, they're safe now and they're good and you can run in them, but the best thing we can do is to move as quickly as possible to electric plug-in hybrids, which would use biofuels and electricity. How many people have a hybrid vehicle here, anybody? Well, you can drive it to 25 or 30 miles an hour on the battery and then it switches to gas. So they'll get -- like, I've got a mini-SUV that we drive around, it's about 40 miles to the gallon in the city. Once you get a battery that is strong enough to last all day, that will drive it at 60 miles a gallon, then you're getting 100 miles a gallon. If you get to 50 miles a gallon, then you're not probably going to get to 100 miles a gallon. There are several of these experimental vehicles now being driven in the United States getting 100 miles a gallon and you bring them in at night and plug them in and it's all you have to do. That's really where we ought to go. The problem is the lithium batteries are very powerful, but we haven't figured out how to produce them at a cost where you can afford to buy the cars. But we'll get there pretty soon. That I think is the biggest, best near-term solution and it's very important. Keep in mind, 70 percent of all the oil in this country is used for transportation and you don't need any of it to get around. Next time you get in the car, you remember that. The only place we need oils today is to fly around in jet airplanes. Nobody's figured out how to lift a heavy airplane off the ground and fly it a long way at a fast speed without jet diesel fuel. Every other use of oil to move is optional. So we need to do more rail, more fast rail. We need to do more electric hybrid. We need to move to all this. But there's so little of this ethanol production now, it's not a problem, but if that became our main source of clean fuels, it would be a real problem. And so what you're basically doing is raising a warning flag that should move us into the cellulosic ethanol and into the electric hybrid vehicles as soon as possible. I'm sorry, I've got to go. Thank you. I hope you'll vote for Hillary tomorrow. Thanks. (APPLAUSE) END
Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans
Baton Rouge, LA The Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans is the center of controversy. It's been destroyed by hurricane Katrina. The rebuilding has been plagued with neglect from the city. The area was flooded during the hurricane when the levee broke holding the flood waters of lake Pontchartrain back. Many people died as result of the flood waters. The area has become overgrown in places. Vandals have stolen anything not tied down and trash dumping is common, even blocking streets. Brad Pitt has invested in housing on Tennessee Street In an effort to revitalize the neighborhood.
BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH
[BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH] [HANOVER, NH USA] FTG OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON'S (D-NY) HUSBAND BILL AND DAUGHTER CHELSEA SPEAKING AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE I don't understand why Lou Dobbs is against this and keeps calling this amnesty. A conservative ought to be for giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, because it's the only way of identifying who's in this country. So, for example, let's just -- suppose we said, OK, for the next six months, every undocumented immigrant can sign up and do what Hillary, Senator McCain -- he's the only Republican, I think, for this -- and most of our crowd says, let them -- you know, they have to move behind all the people who have legally applied for citizenship, take English classes, pay a small fine, and then they become eligible to be citizens. If 11,950,000 people sign up, it is much easier to find the terrorist needle in a haystack of 50,000 than in a haystack of 12 million. Someone ought to ask Tancredo and Lou Dobbs and all these people why they don't agree with that. They keep talking about amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. These people are here working, doing things. We need to know who's here. She favors that. She thinks it may be necessary to lift the quotas, to have higher quotas in some areas, and it is also then important, once you do all this, to really enforce the workplace laws, because there are places -- and we know them. We've got plenty of evidence on this. I live in a county where immigrants do jobs that other people wouldn't do and in a county where immigrants have been abused in the workplace so they could be paid less and American citizens wouldn't have to be paid more. In other words, I've seen both sides of this. And so it's very important that if we have immigration reform, we then go back and enforce the workplace laws. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of tension between people at the lower wage levels and ethnic tensions among African-Americans and Hispanics, for example, and others that we're not doing the right thing by the law. So we have to have a comprehensive solution and I think it's the fairest one. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) more diplomatic in its relations with other countries. So how do you reconcile that with Hillary's vote, I think in 2007, to declare Iran's national guard a terrorist organization? CLINTON: Oh, because I think it is. First, it is, as a factual matter. First, it is. And, secondly, we now know, we have evidence that keeping the economic heat on Iran works. The latest National Intelligence Estimate says they stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. You remember that? It just came out. And that they stopped it, in part, because they're trying to avoid economic sanctions. No serious person thought that that was any kind of a red light to attack Iran and I have evidence. Remember, who was the sponsor of the Iran legislation that Hillary voted for? Senator Carl Levin, who was also the sponsor of the anti-authorization Iraq bill. That is, there were two competing Iraq resolutions. One, contrary to popular belief, did not authorize the president to attack Iraq, regardless. It authorized the president to use force if Iraq flunked the sanctions, if they didn't cooperate. The other by Levin, who turned out to be prescient, said "I understand why you need the pressure to get him to cooperate, but I don't really trust the president. So he can't use force until he comes back. If they flunk the sanctions, tell him to come back to the Congress for an authorization to use force." So Levin -- that's where Levin's coming from. He never would have offered a resolution that would have been a backdoor way to justify an attack on Iran. It was just a question of whether you believe that a part of our diplomacy with Iran is tightening economic sanctions when they're doing things that are against our values and interest and against international law. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Hillary and anything she's said or done so far. CLINTON: I don't think it's changed her platform, but I think she'll have to run as the underdog for a while now, which is good. It ought to be hard to get to be president. It ought to be hard for everybody. It's good. I didn't win a -- I didn't win a single... (APPLAUSE) You know, and I didn't like it when people wrote up and acted like she was entitled to be nominated. She never did. As I told you, I told her a year ago, January a year ago, the nomination will be hard and you win the general election handily if you get nominated. I still believe that. But the real problem for us is I think it was a real disadvantage in New Hampshire because you get a 17-to-24 imbalance out of winning Iowa in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, I'd like to believe they're independent, but the truth is they're influenced by the news. And it was a really unfortunate development for her that New Hampshire moved its election to five days after Iowa. If you'd stayed further back, which would have put you closer to Nevada and South Carolina, I think that it would have been better for her, because I think she got the -- the election finally -- we had our first thing that resembled almost a real debate in the New Hampshire debate. It was the first time there were any distinctions drawn. It was, from my point of view, better than any of the ones we had before. But I think what she has to do is just to be fair, to get out there and keep running. Let me remind you -- and I think she's picked up a lot in the last two days. I can just feel it. But there's just only so much you can do against the tidal wave of listening. In New Hampshire-ites, as I said, you might think they're making independent judgments, but you can't help but be affected by the press. And I think that what she needs to do is to remember that this is a long process, and so do the others. I mean, I lost, I got murdered in Iowa, where I didn't even compete, because they had an Iowa Senator running. Then I lost New Hampshire, but I finished second. Then I lost Maine and finished third. Then I lost South Dakota and finished third. Then I lost in Colorado and finished second by a point. Then I lost in Maryland and finished second by a few points. I did not win -- and how many states have I gone through? Seven, six. My first victory was in Georgia. Then I won in South Carolina. Then I only lost in Connecticut from then on in. But even after months later, I lost a primary in Connecticut. So this is going to be a long process and you just have to be willing to -- if you believe you'd be the best president when you run, you know the outcome is uncertain, you'll have ups and downs, and you just have to believe it. But I think that the thing that I think she will regret that I always did is when you move out of the early states, you don't give as much time to do things like this, which I think are very good. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: Oh, that's very important. She said what else can we do to help New Orleans after Katrina. First of all, I work down there now with my foundation and we're trying to help the people like Brad Pitt's project build green houses and I've funded two schools that can be rebuilt as green schools. I'm trying to convince the people of New Orleans that if they made a serious commitment to be a completely green city, I could get them billions of dollars of investment, which I believe, and it would change things. So she has spent a lot of time down there independent of me and, in the beginning, they were just trying to get all the funds allocated. But there's still a lot of problems with the way the federal money that has already been appropriated has not been released and why. So the first thing I think she will do is to have somebody go down there, work with the city and the state, have a coordinator and figure out how to move this money in a way that is as quickly as possible, but maximally effective. In every disaster, this was true in the tsunami in South Asia, where I worked for two years with the U.N., in every disaster, the most difficult thing is getting people back in their housing. But it's too slow. So what she wants to do is to help them, but to also help them in ways that promotes sustainable development so we can develop a whole different sector of the New Orleans economy. Then she believes that we should have some effort to restore the wetlands, because keep in mind, when the water broke coming up that channel, if the wetlands south of New Orleans had been in the same condition they were 30 years earlier, the water would have been traveling at a speed half as fast and the gates might never have broken and most of the damage might never have been done. So she believes there needs to be a serious effort there. And then along the Gulf Coast, some of the barrier islands and sandbars have been severely eroded in front of the towns in Alabama and Mississippi, too, and she thinks that's an area of traditional federal responsibility, environmental restoration that we have not been sufficiently active in. QUESTION: You talked that Hillary Clinton polls very well in foreign countries, but most of those countries want money from us. And how do we know that Hillary Clinton isn't going to go to Washington and give away billions of our tax dollars? CLINTON: Well, the ones I mentioned are all countries that don't want any money from us. Europe and Canada we don't give foreign aid to. But for whatever it's worth, the United States gives the smallest percentage of its income in foreign aid of any wealthy country in the world. We give less than everybody else at a time when we know more than we have ever known about how to effectively give assistance to poor countries, which helps us and reduces future problems. If you educate people and you get rid of disease and you empower people economically in really poor countries, you make more friends and you have fewer wars in the future. It's as good thing to do. Since you mentioned it, I will tell you, again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think she is the only candidate that has recommended spending a few billion dollars to pay more than our fair share of putting the 130 million children in the world who never go to school into primary school, and you should support that. Why? Because one year of schooling in a poor country is worth 10 percent a year in extra income for life and because the world's population is now slated to grow from its current level of 6.5 billion to nine billion by mid-century. That's the same 40-year -- three-year period when all the rest of us are supposed to figure out how to reduce our greenhouse gases by 80 percent. It's going to be harder. The only thing we can do consistent with our values that unite people who are pro-choice and pro-life and all of that to stop that is to put all the girls of the world in school and give all the young women access to the labor market and it will cause... (APPLAUSE) ... I promise you, over a 20-year period, we'll save a fortune doing this. It will cause people to marry at later ages and to have their first children at later ages and to have smaller families and that will reduce dramatically the burden on the planet of managing this whole climate change thing. QUESTION: Recently, there's been a fair amount of discussion about what some say is undue influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington and how that negatively impacts the United States and, some people say, Israel, as well. How would Hillary -- would Hillary Clinton change that or continue? CLINTON: Well, I think, first, there are people who don't like Israel who always say that and it is true that we are a staunch ally of theirs and committed to their security. I think we make a mistake if we back every decision the Israeli government makes and that seemed to be President Bush's policy for a few years. But in fairness to them, they have reconvened the peace talks and they have shown some willingness to publicly pressure the Israelis not to expand settlements in the territories that will have to be given back to the Palestinians if we're ever going to have peace. I don't see it that way, though. I have to tell you, there's a reason that I made so much progress for seven years in peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's only because the United States -- because the Israelis believe that the United States cares profoundly whether we survive or not that we have the credibility with them to persuade them to make the concessions necessary to give the Palestinians a homeland and a decent life. I remember one time the president of one of the European countries called me after I left office and he said, "Tell me what I can do now in the Middle East." I said, "Well, we're old friends. Shall I tell you the truth or what you want to hear?" He said, "Tell me the truth." I said, "There's nothing you can do." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because the Israelis do not believe you care whether they live or die." And the United States has influence in the Middle East and can stand up for the Palestinians because the Israelis believe that we care whether they live or die. And so I think that it's important for us to be able to disagree with particular decisions of the Israeli government, but our security relationship with them and our commitment to them is what gives us a chance to make a deal for the Palestinians, and we have to do it. It should have been done already, but we've got a better chance now because all of the Sunni Arab states desperately want peace with Israel. They desperately want a political, military and security partnership with them, because they're more worried about Iran and they don't need the Israelis as a whipping boy to jump up in their own population anymore. So I agree with you, we have to be sensitive about this, but I just don't agree with that, the general idea that the United States government is in the hip pocket of the Israeli lobby. I think that Harry Truman was the first world leader to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. Israel was created by the United Nations and, therefore, even though the U.N. is often against Israel's political positions, they, too, have a right to exist. And the fact that we are prepared to protect that right gives us a leverage that we ought to use and we should use always, we should have been using in the years when President Bush got out of it, to push for peace and a fair deal for the Palestinians. They have been the most abused people on earth by their own leaders and by the other Arabs and, on occasion, by the Israelis, as well. Nobody's given them a break and we need to. Yes, the gentleman in the green suit, and then I've got to quit. I got a note here that says "Take another question and tell everyone you're going to Thayer Dining Hall to see all the people that couldn't get in here." QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality. For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama. CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day. But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor from the beginning, always, always, always." First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way. Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since." Give me a break. (APPLAUSE) This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa. But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. (APPLAUSE) Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject. (LAUGHTER) Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: He said there's a problem with ethanol because you always have pesticide runoffs and some people believe it's not a net positive in carbon emissions. Actually, I've ready every bit of the data I can on this, because I'm, as I told you, heavily involved in this. I believe it is a net positive, but not a very good one. It's about two-to-one net. The United States would be far better off, even the corn farmers in the middle west would be better off producing ethanol from cellulosic substances. That is, basically, the residue from harvesting crops, switch grass, fast growing willows in upstate New York and other places, any kind of organic material. That will produce four gallons of ethanol for every one gallon of gasoline. The problem is you have to use an enzyme process to turn the organic material into a sugar-like substance to make it into ethanol and the enzyme conversion process is more than twice as expensive today. But you're right, if, like -- let's take all these Iowa ethanol plants that have been built, for example. They can all be converted to cellulosic ethanol and they're even beginning to build them now there. If you do that, what will happen is it will moderate corn prices, which will be good. You will plant more wheat, which will good, and more land will be put into conservation reserve, which will be good. But there are tradeoffs here that we're going to have to work through all over the world. The best ethanol in the world for conversion purposes is Brazilian sugar cane. It's eight gallons of ethanol for every one gallon, but the demand for it has gotten so high now, they're taking down land in the Atlantic rain forest, not in Amazonia, but in the Atlantic rain forest, which is terrible because it undermines the biodiversity of the planet and tropical rain forests absorb far more greenhouse gases that forests in New Hampshire, we know, the closer you get. So it's something that we're all just going to have to work through and it may be that there'll have to be some legislation on this at some point, but we are so far from where we need to be, I think that the thing we should work on and one of the things Hillary has proposed is that we increase the tax differential for cellulosic ethanol and increase the research budget to get the cost down so that we make it economical now to do. If we do that, I think that would address a lot of your concerns. The other thing is that until we get to a hydrogen vehicle, and I've actually been in one, but we can't make them for less than quarter of a million bucks, they're safe now and they're good and you can run in them, but the best thing we can do is to move as quickly as possible to electric plug-in hybrids, which would use biofuels and electricity. How many people have a hybrid vehicle here, anybody? Well, you can drive it to 25 or 30 miles an hour on the battery and then it switches to gas. So they'll get -- like, I've got a mini-SUV that we drive around, it's about 40 miles to the gallon in the city. Once you get a battery that is strong enough to last all day, that will drive it at 60 miles a gallon, then you're getting 100 miles a gallon. If you get to 50 miles a gallon, then you're not probably going to get to 100 miles a gallon. There are several of these experimental vehicles now being driven in the United States getting 100 miles a gallon and you bring them in at night and plug them in and it's all you have to do. That's really where we ought to go. The problem is the lithium batteries are very powerful, but we haven't figured out how to produce them at a cost where you can afford to buy the cars. But we'll get there pretty soon. That I think is the biggest, best near-term solution and it's very important. Keep in mind, 70 percent of all the oil in this country is used for transportation and you don't need any of it to get around. Next time you get in the car, you remember that. The only place we need oils today is to fly around in jet airplanes. Nobody's figured out how to lift a heavy airplane off the ground and fly it a long way at a fast speed without jet diesel fuel. Every other use of oil to move is optional. So we need to do more rail, more fast rail. We need to do more electric hybrid. We need to move to all this. But there's so little of this ethanol production now, it's not a problem, but if that became our main source of clean fuels, it would be a real problem. And so what you're basically doing is raising a warning flag that should move us into the cellulosic ethanol and into the electric hybrid vehicles as soon as possible. I'm sorry, I've got to go. Thank you. I hope you'll vote for Hillary tomorrow. Thanks. (APPLAUSE) END
BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH
[BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH] [HANOVER, NH USA] FTG OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON'S (D-NY) HUSBAND BILL AND DAUGHTER CHELSEA SPEAKING AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE I don't understand why Lou Dobbs is against this and keeps calling this amnesty. A conservative ought to be for giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, because it's the only way of identifying who's in this country. So, for example, let's just -- suppose we said, OK, for the next six months, every undocumented immigrant can sign up and do what Hillary, Senator McCain -- he's the only Republican, I think, for this -- and most of our crowd says, let them -- you know, they have to move behind all the people who have legally applied for citizenship, take English classes, pay a small fine, and then they become eligible to be citizens. If 11,950,000 people sign up, it is much easier to find the terrorist needle in a haystack of 50,000 than in a haystack of 12 million. Someone ought to ask Tancredo and Lou Dobbs and all these people why they don't agree with that. They keep talking about amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. These people are here working, doing things. We need to know who's here. She favors that. She thinks it may be necessary to lift the quotas, to have higher quotas in some areas, and it is also then important, once you do all this, to really enforce the workplace laws, because there are places -- and we know them. We've got plenty of evidence on this. I live in a county where immigrants do jobs that other people wouldn't do and in a county where immigrants have been abused in the workplace so they could be paid less and American citizens wouldn't have to be paid more. In other words, I've seen both sides of this. And so it's very important that if we have immigration reform, we then go back and enforce the workplace laws. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of tension between people at the lower wage levels and ethnic tensions among African-Americans and Hispanics, for example, and others that we're not doing the right thing by the law. So we have to have a comprehensive solution and I think it's the fairest one. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) more diplomatic in its relations with other countries. So how do you reconcile that with Hillary's vote, I think in 2007, to declare Iran's national guard a terrorist organization? CLINTON: Oh, because I think it is. First, it is, as a factual matter. First, it is. And, secondly, we now know, we have evidence that keeping the economic heat on Iran works. The latest National Intelligence Estimate says they stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. You remember that? It just came out. And that they stopped it, in part, because they're trying to avoid economic sanctions. No serious person thought that that was any kind of a red light to attack Iran and I have evidence. Remember, who was the sponsor of the Iran legislation that Hillary voted for? Senator Carl Levin, who was also the sponsor of the anti-authorization Iraq bill. That is, there were two competing Iraq resolutions. One, contrary to popular belief, did not authorize the president to attack Iraq, regardless. It authorized the president to use force if Iraq flunked the sanctions, if they didn't cooperate. The other by Levin, who turned out to be prescient, said "I understand why you need the pressure to get him to cooperate, but I don't really trust the president. So he can't use force until he comes back. If they flunk the sanctions, tell him to come back to the Congress for an authorization to use force." So Levin -- that's where Levin's coming from. He never would have offered a resolution that would have been a backdoor way to justify an attack on Iran. It was just a question of whether you believe that a part of our diplomacy with Iran is tightening economic sanctions when they're doing things that are against our values and interest and against international law. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Hillary and anything she's said or done so far. CLINTON: I don't think it's changed her platform, but I think she'll have to run as the underdog for a while now, which is good. It ought to be hard to get to be president. It ought to be hard for everybody. It's good. I didn't win a -- I didn't win a single... (APPLAUSE) You know, and I didn't like it when people wrote up and acted like she was entitled to be nominated. She never did. As I told you, I told her a year ago, January a year ago, the nomination will be hard and you win the general election handily if you get nominated. I still believe that. But the real problem for us is I think it was a real disadvantage in New Hampshire because you get a 17-to-24 imbalance out of winning Iowa in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, I'd like to believe they're independent, but the truth is they're influenced by the news. And it was a really unfortunate development for her that New Hampshire moved its election to five days after Iowa. If you'd stayed further back, which would have put you closer to Nevada and South Carolina, I think that it would have been better for her, because I think she got the -- the election finally -- we had our first thing that resembled almost a real debate in the New Hampshire debate. It was the first time there were any distinctions drawn. It was, from my point of view, better than any of the ones we had before. But I think what she has to do is just to be fair, to get out there and keep running. Let me remind you -- and I think she's picked up a lot in the last two days. I can just feel it. But there's just only so much you can do against the tidal wave of listening. In New Hampshire-ites, as I said, you might think they're making independent judgments, but you can't help but be affected by the press. And I think that what she needs to do is to remember that this is a long process, and so do the others. I mean, I lost, I got murdered in Iowa, where I didn't even compete, because they had an Iowa Senator running. Then I lost New Hampshire, but I finished second. Then I lost Maine and finished third. Then I lost South Dakota and finished third. Then I lost in Colorado and finished second by a point. Then I lost in Maryland and finished second by a few points. I did not win -- and how many states have I gone through? Seven, six. My first victory was in Georgia. Then I won in South Carolina. Then I only lost in Connecticut from then on in. But even after months later, I lost a primary in Connecticut. So this is going to be a long process and you just have to be willing to -- if you believe you'd be the best president when you run, you know the outcome is uncertain, you'll have ups and downs, and you just have to believe it. But I think that the thing that I think she will regret that I always did is when you move out of the early states, you don't give as much time to do things like this, which I think are very good. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: Oh, that's very important. She said what else can we do to help New Orleans after Katrina. First of all, I work down there now with my foundation and we're trying to help the people like Brad Pitt's project build green houses and I've funded two schools that can be rebuilt as green schools. I'm trying to convince the people of New Orleans that if they made a serious commitment to be a completely green city, I could get them billions of dollars of investment, which I believe, and it would change things. So she has spent a lot of time down there independent of me and, in the beginning, they were just trying to get all the funds allocated. But there's still a lot of problems with the way the federal money that has already been appropriated has not been released and why. So the first thing I think she will do is to have somebody go down there, work with the city and the state, have a coordinator and figure out how to move this money in a way that is as quickly as possible, but maximally effective. In every disaster, this was true in the tsunami in South Asia, where I worked for two years with the U.N., in every disaster, the most difficult thing is getting people back in their housing. But it's too slow. So what she wants to do is to help them, but to also help them in ways that promotes sustainable development so we can develop a whole different sector of the New Orleans economy. Then she believes that we should have some effort to restore the wetlands, because keep in mind, when the water broke coming up that channel, if the wetlands south of New Orleans had been in the same condition they were 30 years earlier, the water would have been traveling at a speed half as fast and the gates might never have broken and most of the damage might never have been done. So she believes there needs to be a serious effort there. And then along the Gulf Coast, some of the barrier islands and sandbars have been severely eroded in front of the towns in Alabama and Mississippi, too, and she thinks that's an area of traditional federal responsibility, environmental restoration that we have not been sufficiently active in. QUESTION: You talked that Hillary Clinton polls very well in foreign countries, but most of those countries want money from us. And how do we know that Hillary Clinton isn't going to go to Washington and give away billions of our tax dollars? CLINTON: Well, the ones I mentioned are all countries that don't want any money from us. Europe and Canada we don't give foreign aid to. But for whatever it's worth, the United States gives the smallest percentage of its income in foreign aid of any wealthy country in the world. We give less than everybody else at a time when we know more than we have ever known about how to effectively give assistance to poor countries, which helps us and reduces future problems. If you educate people and you get rid of disease and you empower people economically in really poor countries, you make more friends and you have fewer wars in the future. It's as good thing to do. Since you mentioned it, I will tell you, again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think she is the only candidate that has recommended spending a few billion dollars to pay more than our fair share of putting the 130 million children in the world who never go to school into primary school, and you should support that. Why? Because one year of schooling in a poor country is worth 10 percent a year in extra income for life and because the world's population is now slated to grow from its current level of 6.5 billion to nine billion by mid-century. That's the same 40-year -- three-year period when all the rest of us are supposed to figure out how to reduce our greenhouse gases by 80 percent. It's going to be harder. The only thing we can do consistent with our values that unite people who are pro-choice and pro-life and all of that to stop that is to put all the girls of the world in school and give all the young women access to the labor market and it will cause... (APPLAUSE) ... I promise you, over a 20-year period, we'll save a fortune doing this. It will cause people to marry at later ages and to have their first children at later ages and to have smaller families and that will reduce dramatically the burden on the planet of managing this whole climate change thing. QUESTION: Recently, there's been a fair amount of discussion about what some say is undue influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington and how that negatively impacts the United States and, some people say, Israel, as well. How would Hillary -- would Hillary Clinton change that or continue? CLINTON: Well, I think, first, there are people who don't like Israel who always say that and it is true that we are a staunch ally of theirs and committed to their security. I think we make a mistake if we back every decision the Israeli government makes and that seemed to be President Bush's policy for a few years. But in fairness to them, they have reconvened the peace talks and they have shown some willingness to publicly pressure the Israelis not to expand settlements in the territories that will have to be given back to the Palestinians if we're ever going to have peace. I don't see it that way, though. I have to tell you, there's a reason that I made so much progress for seven years in peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's only because the United States -- because the Israelis believe that the United States cares profoundly whether we survive or not that we have the credibility with them to persuade them to make the concessions necessary to give the Palestinians a homeland and a decent life. I remember one time the president of one of the European countries called me after I left office and he said, "Tell me what I can do now in the Middle East." I said, "Well, we're old friends. Shall I tell you the truth or what you want to hear?" He said, "Tell me the truth." I said, "There's nothing you can do." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because the Israelis do not believe you care whether they live or die." And the United States has influence in the Middle East and can stand up for the Palestinians because the Israelis believe that we care whether they live or die. And so I think that it's important for us to be able to disagree with particular decisions of the Israeli government, but our security relationship with them and our commitment to them is what gives us a chance to make a deal for the Palestinians, and we have to do it. It should have been done already, but we've got a better chance now because all of the Sunni Arab states desperately want peace with Israel. They desperately want a political, military and security partnership with them, because they're more worried about Iran and they don't need the Israelis as a whipping boy to jump up in their own population anymore. So I agree with you, we have to be sensitive about this, but I just don't agree with that, the general idea that the United States government is in the hip pocket of the Israeli lobby. I think that Harry Truman was the first world leader to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. Israel was created by the United Nations and, therefore, even though the U.N. is often against Israel's political positions, they, too, have a right to exist. And the fact that we are prepared to protect that right gives us a leverage that we ought to use and we should use always, we should have been using in the years when President Bush got out of it, to push for peace and a fair deal for the Palestinians. They have been the most abused people on earth by their own leaders and by the other Arabs and, on occasion, by the Israelis, as well. Nobody's given them a break and we need to. Yes, the gentleman in the green suit, and then I've got to quit. I got a note here that says "Take another question and tell everyone you're going to Thayer Dining Hall to see all the people that couldn't get in here." QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality. For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama. CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day. But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor from the beginning, always, always, always." First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way. Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since." Give me a break. (APPLAUSE) This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa. But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. (APPLAUSE) Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject. (LAUGHTER) Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: He said there's a problem with ethanol because you always have pesticide runoffs and some people believe it's not a net positive in carbon emissions. Actually, I've ready every bit of the data I can on this, because I'm, as I told you, heavily involved in this. I believe it is a net positive, but not a very good one. It's about two-to-one net. The United States would be far better off, even the corn farmers in the middle west would be better off producing ethanol from cellulosic substances. That is, basically, the residue from harvesting crops, switch grass, fast growing willows in upstate New York and other places, any kind of organic material. That will produce four gallons of ethanol for every one gallon of gasoline. The problem is you have to use an enzyme process to turn the organic material into a sugar-like substance to make it into ethanol and the enzyme conversion process is more than twice as expensive today. But you're right, if, like -- let's take all these Iowa ethanol plants that have been built, for example. They can all be converted to cellulosic ethanol and they're even beginning to build them now there. If you do that, what will happen is it will moderate corn prices, which will be good. You will plant more wheat, which will good, and more land will be put into conservation reserve, which will be good. But there are tradeoffs here that we're going to have to work through all over the world. The best ethanol in the world for conversion purposes is Brazilian sugar cane. It's eight gallons of ethanol for every one gallon, but the demand for it has gotten so high now, they're taking down land in the Atlantic rain forest, not in Amazonia, but in the Atlantic rain forest, which is terrible because it undermines the biodiversity of the planet and tropical rain forests absorb far more greenhouse gases that forests in New Hampshire, we know, the closer you get. So it's something that we're all just going to have to work through and it may be that there'll have to be some legislation on this at some point, but we are so far from where we need to be, I think that the thing we should work on and one of the things Hillary has proposed is that we increase the tax differential for cellulosic ethanol and increase the research budget to get the cost down so that we make it economical now to do. If we do that, I think that would address a lot of your concerns. The other thing is that until we get to a hydrogen vehicle, and I've actually been in one, but we can't make them for less than quarter of a million bucks, they're safe now and they're good and you can run in them, but the best thing we can do is to move as quickly as possible to electric plug-in hybrids, which would use biofuels and electricity. How many people have a hybrid vehicle here, anybody? Well, you can drive it to 25 or 30 miles an hour on the battery and then it switches to gas. So they'll get -- like, I've got a mini-SUV that we drive around, it's about 40 miles to the gallon in the city. Once you get a battery that is strong enough to last all day, that will drive it at 60 miles a gallon, then you're getting 100 miles a gallon. If you get to 50 miles a gallon, then you're not probably going to get to 100 miles a gallon. There are several of these experimental vehicles now being driven in the United States getting 100 miles a gallon and you bring them in at night and plug them in and it's all you have to do. That's really where we ought to go. The problem is the lithium batteries are very powerful, but we haven't figured out how to produce them at a cost where you can afford to buy the cars. But we'll get there pretty soon. That I think is the biggest, best near-term solution and it's very important. Keep in mind, 70 percent of all the oil in this country is used for transportation and you don't need any of it to get around. Next time you get in the car, you remember that. The only place we need oils today is to fly around in jet airplanes. Nobody's figured out how to lift a heavy airplane off the ground and fly it a long way at a fast speed without jet diesel fuel. Every other use of oil to move is optional. So we need to do more rail, more fast rail. We need to do more electric hybrid. We need to move to all this. But there's so little of this ethanol production now, it's not a problem, but if that became our main source of clean fuels, it would be a real problem. And so what you're basically doing is raising a warning flag that should move us into the cellulosic ethanol and into the electric hybrid vehicles as soon as possible. I'm sorry, I've got to go. Thank you. I hope you'll vote for Hillary tomorrow. Thanks. (APPLAUSE) END
BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH
[BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH] [HANOVER, NH USA] FTG OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON'S (D-NY) HUSBAND BILL AND DAUGHTER CHELSEA SPEAKING AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE I don't understand why Lou Dobbs is against this and keeps calling this amnesty. A conservative ought to be for giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, because it's the only way of identifying who's in this country. So, for example, let's just -- suppose we said, OK, for the next six months, every undocumented immigrant can sign up and do what Hillary, Senator McCain -- he's the only Republican, I think, for this -- and most of our crowd says, let them -- you know, they have to move behind all the people who have legally applied for citizenship, take English classes, pay a small fine, and then they become eligible to be citizens. If 11,950,000 people sign up, it is much easier to find the terrorist needle in a haystack of 50,000 than in a haystack of 12 million. Someone ought to ask Tancredo and Lou Dobbs and all these people why they don't agree with that. They keep talking about amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. These people are here working, doing things. We need to know who's here. She favors that. She thinks it may be necessary to lift the quotas, to have higher quotas in some areas, and it is also then important, once you do all this, to really enforce the workplace laws, because there are places -- and we know them. We've got plenty of evidence on this. I live in a county where immigrants do jobs that other people wouldn't do and in a county where immigrants have been abused in the workplace so they could be paid less and American citizens wouldn't have to be paid more. In other words, I've seen both sides of this. And so it's very important that if we have immigration reform, we then go back and enforce the workplace laws. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of tension between people at the lower wage levels and ethnic tensions among African-Americans and Hispanics, for example, and others that we're not doing the right thing by the law. So we have to have a comprehensive solution and I think it's the fairest one. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) more diplomatic in its relations with other countries. So how do you reconcile that with Hillary's vote, I think in 2007, to declare Iran's national guard a terrorist organization? CLINTON: Oh, because I think it is. First, it is, as a factual matter. First, it is. And, secondly, we now know, we have evidence that keeping the economic heat on Iran works. The latest National Intelligence Estimate says they stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. You remember that? It just came out. And that they stopped it, in part, because they're trying to avoid economic sanctions. No serious person thought that that was any kind of a red light to attack Iran and I have evidence. Remember, who was the sponsor of the Iran legislation that Hillary voted for? Senator Carl Levin, who was also the sponsor of the anti-authorization Iraq bill. That is, there were two competing Iraq resolutions. One, contrary to popular belief, did not authorize the president to attack Iraq, regardless. It authorized the president to use force if Iraq flunked the sanctions, if they didn't cooperate. The other by Levin, who turned out to be prescient, said "I understand why you need the pressure to get him to cooperate, but I don't really trust the president. So he can't use force until he comes back. If they flunk the sanctions, tell him to come back to the Congress for an authorization to use force." So Levin -- that's where Levin's coming from. He never would have offered a resolution that would have been a backdoor way to justify an attack on Iran. It was just a question of whether you believe that a part of our diplomacy with Iran is tightening economic sanctions when they're doing things that are against our values and interest and against international law. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Hillary and anything she's said or done so far. CLINTON: I don't think it's changed her platform, but I think she'll have to run as the underdog for a while now, which is good. It ought to be hard to get to be president. It ought to be hard for everybody. It's good. I didn't win a -- I didn't win a single... (APPLAUSE) You know, and I didn't like it when people wrote up and acted like she was entitled to be nominated. She never did. As I told you, I told her a year ago, January a year ago, the nomination will be hard and you win the general election handily if you get nominated. I still believe that. But the real problem for us is I think it was a real disadvantage in New Hampshire because you get a 17-to-24 imbalance out of winning Iowa in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, I'd like to believe they're independent, but the truth is they're influenced by the news. And it was a really unfortunate development for her that New Hampshire moved its election to five days after Iowa. If you'd stayed further back, which would have put you closer to Nevada and South Carolina, I think that it would have been better for her, because I think she got the -- the election finally -- we had our first thing that resembled almost a real debate in the New Hampshire debate. It was the first time there were any distinctions drawn. It was, from my point of view, better than any of the ones we had before. But I think what she has to do is just to be fair, to get out there and keep running. Let me remind you -- and I think she's picked up a lot in the last two days. I can just feel it. But there's just only so much you can do against the tidal wave of listening. In New Hampshire-ites, as I said, you might think they're making independent judgments, but you can't help but be affected by the press. And I think that what she needs to do is to remember that this is a long process, and so do the others. I mean, I lost, I got murdered in Iowa, where I didn't even compete, because they had an Iowa Senator running. Then I lost New Hampshire, but I finished second. Then I lost Maine and finished third. Then I lost South Dakota and finished third. Then I lost in Colorado and finished second by a point. Then I lost in Maryland and finished second by a few points. I did not win -- and how many states have I gone through? Seven, six. My first victory was in Georgia. Then I won in South Carolina. Then I only lost in Connecticut from then on in. But even after months later, I lost a primary in Connecticut. So this is going to be a long process and you just have to be willing to -- if you believe you'd be the best president when you run, you know the outcome is uncertain, you'll have ups and downs, and you just have to believe it. But I think that the thing that I think she will regret that I always did is when you move out of the early states, you don't give as much time to do things like this, which I think are very good. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: Oh, that's very important. She said what else can we do to help New Orleans after Katrina. First of all, I work down there now with my foundation and we're trying to help the people like Brad Pitt's project build green houses and I've funded two schools that can be rebuilt as green schools. I'm trying to convince the people of New Orleans that if they made a serious commitment to be a completely green city, I could get them billions of dollars of investment, which I believe, and it would change things. So she has spent a lot of time down there independent of me and, in the beginning, they were just trying to get all the funds allocated. But there's still a lot of problems with the way the federal money that has already been appropriated has not been released and why. So the first thing I think she will do is to have somebody go down there, work with the city and the state, have a coordinator and figure out how to move this money in a way that is as quickly as possible, but maximally effective. In every disaster, this was true in the tsunami in South Asia, where I worked for two years with the U.N., in every disaster, the most difficult thing is getting people back in their housing. But it's too slow. So what she wants to do is to help them, but to also help them in ways that promotes sustainable development so we can develop a whole different sector of the New Orleans economy. Then she believes that we should have some effort to restore the wetlands, because keep in mind, when the water broke coming up that channel, if the wetlands south of New Orleans had been in the same condition they were 30 years earlier, the water would have been traveling at a speed half as fast and the gates might never have broken and most of the damage might never have been done. So she believes there needs to be a serious effort there. And then along the Gulf Coast, some of the barrier islands and sandbars have been severely eroded in front of the towns in Alabama and Mississippi, too, and she thinks that's an area of traditional federal responsibility, environmental restoration that we have not been sufficiently active in. QUESTION: You talked that Hillary Clinton polls very well in foreign countries, but most of those countries want money from us. And how do we know that Hillary Clinton isn't going to go to Washington and give away billions of our tax dollars? CLINTON: Well, the ones I mentioned are all countries that don't want any money from us. Europe and Canada we don't give foreign aid to. But for whatever it's worth, the United States gives the smallest percentage of its income in foreign aid of any wealthy country in the world. We give less than everybody else at a time when we know more than we have ever known about how to effectively give assistance to poor countries, which helps us and reduces future problems. If you educate people and you get rid of disease and you empower people economically in really poor countries, you make more friends and you have fewer wars in the future. It's as good thing to do. Since you mentioned it, I will tell you, again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think she is the only candidate that has recommended spending a few billion dollars to pay more than our fair share of putting the 130 million children in the world who never go to school into primary school, and you should support that. Why? Because one year of schooling in a poor country is worth 10 percent a year in extra income for life and because the world's population is now slated to grow from its current level of 6.5 billion to nine billion by mid-century. That's the same 40-year -- three-year period when all the rest of us are supposed to figure out how to reduce our greenhouse gases by 80 percent. It's going to be harder. The only thing we can do consistent with our values that unite people who are pro-choice and pro-life and all of that to stop that is to put all the girls of the world in school and give all the young women access to the labor market and it will cause... (APPLAUSE) ... I promise you, over a 20-year period, we'll save a fortune doing this. It will cause people to marry at later ages and to have their first children at later ages and to have smaller families and that will reduce dramatically the burden on the planet of managing this whole climate change thing. QUESTION: Recently, there's been a fair amount of discussion about what some say is undue influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington and how that negatively impacts the United States and, some people say, Israel, as well. How would Hillary -- would Hillary Clinton change that or continue? CLINTON: Well, I think, first, there are people who don't like Israel who always say that and it is true that we are a staunch ally of theirs and committed to their security. I think we make a mistake if we back every decision the Israeli government makes and that seemed to be President Bush's policy for a few years. But in fairness to them, they have reconvened the peace talks and they have shown some willingness to publicly pressure the Israelis not to expand settlements in the territories that will have to be given back to the Palestinians if we're ever going to have peace. I don't see it that way, though. I have to tell you, there's a reason that I made so much progress for seven years in peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's only because the United States -- because the Israelis believe that the United States cares profoundly whether we survive or not that we have the credibility with them to persuade them to make the concessions necessary to give the Palestinians a homeland and a decent life. I remember one time the president of one of the European countries called me after I left office and he said, "Tell me what I can do now in the Middle East." I said, "Well, we're old friends. Shall I tell you the truth or what you want to hear?" He said, "Tell me the truth." I said, "There's nothing you can do." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because the Israelis do not believe you care whether they live or die." And the United States has influence in the Middle East and can stand up for the Palestinians because the Israelis believe that we care whether they live or die. And so I think that it's important for us to be able to disagree with particular decisions of the Israeli government, but our security relationship with them and our commitment to them is what gives us a chance to make a deal for the Palestinians, and we have to do it. It should have been done already, but we've got a better chance now because all of the Sunni Arab states desperately want peace with Israel. They desperately want a political, military and security partnership with them, because they're more worried about Iran and they don't need the Israelis as a whipping boy to jump up in their own population anymore. So I agree with you, we have to be sensitive about this, but I just don't agree with that, the general idea that the United States government is in the hip pocket of the Israeli lobby. I think that Harry Truman was the first world leader to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. Israel was created by the United Nations and, therefore, even though the U.N. is often against Israel's political positions, they, too, have a right to exist. And the fact that we are prepared to protect that right gives us a leverage that we ought to use and we should use always, we should have been using in the years when President Bush got out of it, to push for peace and a fair deal for the Palestinians. They have been the most abused people on earth by their own leaders and by the other Arabs and, on occasion, by the Israelis, as well. Nobody's given them a break and we need to. Yes, the gentleman in the green suit, and then I've got to quit. I got a note here that says "Take another question and tell everyone you're going to Thayer Dining Hall to see all the people that couldn't get in here." QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality. For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama. CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day. But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor from the beginning, always, always, always." First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way. Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since." Give me a break. (APPLAUSE) This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa. But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. (APPLAUSE) Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject. (LAUGHTER) Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: He said there's a problem with ethanol because you always have pesticide runoffs and some people believe it's not a net positive in carbon emissions. Actually, I've ready every bit of the data I can on this, because I'm, as I told you, heavily involved in this. I believe it is a net positive, but not a very good one. It's about two-to-one net. The United States would be far better off, even the corn farmers in the middle west would be better off producing ethanol from cellulosic substances. That is, basically, the residue from harvesting crops, switch grass, fast growing willows in upstate New York and other places, any kind of organic material. That will produce four gallons of ethanol for every one gallon of gasoline. The problem is you have to use an enzyme process to turn the organic material into a sugar-like substance to make it into ethanol and the enzyme conversion process is more than twice as expensive today. But you're right, if, like -- let's take all these Iowa ethanol plants that have been built, for example. They can all be converted to cellulosic ethanol and they're even beginning to build them now there. If you do that, what will happen is it will moderate corn prices, which will be good. You will plant more wheat, which will good, and more land will be put into conservation reserve, which will be good. But there are tradeoffs here that we're going to have to work through all over the world. The best ethanol in the world for conversion purposes is Brazilian sugar cane. It's eight gallons of ethanol for every one gallon, but the demand for it has gotten so high now, they're taking down land in the Atlantic rain forest, not in Amazonia, but in the Atlantic rain forest, which is terrible because it undermines the biodiversity of the planet and tropical rain forests absorb far more greenhouse gases that forests in New Hampshire, we know, the closer you get. So it's something that we're all just going to have to work through and it may be that there'll have to be some legislation on this at some point, but we are so far from where we need to be, I think that the thing we should work on and one of the things Hillary has proposed is that we increase the tax differential for cellulosic ethanol and increase the research budget to get the cost down so that we make it economical now to do. If we do that, I think that would address a lot of your concerns. The other thing is that until we get to a hydrogen vehicle, and I've actually been in one, but we can't make them for less than quarter of a million bucks, they're safe now and they're good and you can run in them, but the best thing we can do is to move as quickly as possible to electric plug-in hybrids, which would use biofuels and electricity. How many people have a hybrid vehicle here, anybody? Well, you can drive it to 25 or 30 miles an hour on the battery and then it switches to gas. So they'll get -- like, I've got a mini-SUV that we drive around, it's about 40 miles to the gallon in the city. Once you get a battery that is strong enough to last all day, that will drive it at 60 miles a gallon, then you're getting 100 miles a gallon. If you get to 50 miles a gallon, then you're not probably going to get to 100 miles a gallon. There are several of these experimental vehicles now being driven in the United States getting 100 miles a gallon and you bring them in at night and plug them in and it's all you have to do. That's really where we ought to go. The problem is the lithium batteries are very powerful, but we haven't figured out how to produce them at a cost where you can afford to buy the cars. But we'll get there pretty soon. That I think is the biggest, best near-term solution and it's very important. Keep in mind, 70 percent of all the oil in this country is used for transportation and you don't need any of it to get around. Next time you get in the car, you remember that. The only place we need oils today is to fly around in jet airplanes. Nobody's figured out how to lift a heavy airplane off the ground and fly it a long way at a fast speed without jet diesel fuel. Every other use of oil to move is optional. So we need to do more rail, more fast rail. We need to do more electric hybrid. We need to move to all this. But there's so little of this ethanol production now, it's not a problem, but if that became our main source of clean fuels, it would be a real problem. And so what you're basically doing is raising a warning flag that should move us into the cellulosic ethanol and into the electric hybrid vehicles as soon as possible. I'm sorry, I've got to go. Thank you. I hope you'll vote for Hillary tomorrow. Thanks. (APPLAUSE) END
BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH
[BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH] [HANOVER, NH USA] FTG OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON'S (D-NY) HUSBAND BILL AND DAUGHTER CHELSEA SPEAKING AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE I don't understand why Lou Dobbs is against this and keeps calling this amnesty. A conservative ought to be for giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, because it's the only way of identifying who's in this country. So, for example, let's just -- suppose we said, OK, for the next six months, every undocumented immigrant can sign up and do what Hillary, Senator McCain -- he's the only Republican, I think, for this -- and most of our crowd says, let them -- you know, they have to move behind all the people who have legally applied for citizenship, take English classes, pay a small fine, and then they become eligible to be citizens. If 11,950,000 people sign up, it is much easier to find the terrorist needle in a haystack of 50,000 than in a haystack of 12 million. Someone ought to ask Tancredo and Lou Dobbs and all these people why they don't agree with that. They keep talking about amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. These people are here working, doing things. We need to know who's here. She favors that. She thinks it may be necessary to lift the quotas, to have higher quotas in some areas, and it is also then important, once you do all this, to really enforce the workplace laws, because there are places -- and we know them. We've got plenty of evidence on this. I live in a county where immigrants do jobs that other people wouldn't do and in a county where immigrants have been abused in the workplace so they could be paid less and American citizens wouldn't have to be paid more. In other words, I've seen both sides of this. And so it's very important that if we have immigration reform, we then go back and enforce the workplace laws. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of tension between people at the lower wage levels and ethnic tensions among African-Americans and Hispanics, for example, and others that we're not doing the right thing by the law. So we have to have a comprehensive solution and I think it's the fairest one. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) more diplomatic in its relations with other countries. So how do you reconcile that with Hillary's vote, I think in 2007, to declare Iran's national guard a terrorist organization? CLINTON: Oh, because I think it is. First, it is, as a factual matter. First, it is. And, secondly, we now know, we have evidence that keeping the economic heat on Iran works. The latest National Intelligence Estimate says they stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. You remember that? It just came out. And that they stopped it, in part, because they're trying to avoid economic sanctions. No serious person thought that that was any kind of a red light to attack Iran and I have evidence. Remember, who was the sponsor of the Iran legislation that Hillary voted for? Senator Carl Levin, who was also the sponsor of the anti-authorization Iraq bill. That is, there were two competing Iraq resolutions. One, contrary to popular belief, did not authorize the president to attack Iraq, regardless. It authorized the president to use force if Iraq flunked the sanctions, if they didn't cooperate. The other by Levin, who turned out to be prescient, said "I understand why you need the pressure to get him to cooperate, but I don't really trust the president. So he can't use force until he comes back. If they flunk the sanctions, tell him to come back to the Congress for an authorization to use force." So Levin -- that's where Levin's coming from. He never would have offered a resolution that would have been a backdoor way to justify an attack on Iran. It was just a question of whether you believe that a part of our diplomacy with Iran is tightening economic sanctions when they're doing things that are against our values and interest and against international law. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Hillary and anything she's said or done so far. CLINTON: I don't think it's changed her platform, but I think she'll have to run as the underdog for a while now, which is good. It ought to be hard to get to be president. It ought to be hard for everybody. It's good. I didn't win a -- I didn't win a single... (APPLAUSE) You know, and I didn't like it when people wrote up and acted like she was entitled to be nominated. She never did. As I told you, I told her a year ago, January a year ago, the nomination will be hard and you win the general election handily if you get nominated. I still believe that. But the real problem for us is I think it was a real disadvantage in New Hampshire because you get a 17-to-24 imbalance out of winning Iowa in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, I'd like to believe they're independent, but the truth is they're influenced by the news. And it was a really unfortunate development for her that New Hampshire moved its election to five days after Iowa. If you'd stayed further back, which would have put you closer to Nevada and South Carolina, I think that it would have been better for her, because I think she got the -- the election finally -- we had our first thing that resembled almost a real debate in the New Hampshire debate. It was the first time there were any distinctions drawn. It was, from my point of view, better than any of the ones we had before. But I think what she has to do is just to be fair, to get out there and keep running. Let me remind you -- and I think she's picked up a lot in the last two days. I can just feel it. But there's just only so much you can do against the tidal wave of listening. In New Hampshire-ites, as I said, you might think they're making independent judgments, but you can't help but be affected by the press. And I think that what she needs to do is to remember that this is a long process, and so do the others. I mean, I lost, I got murdered in Iowa, where I didn't even compete, because they had an Iowa Senator running. Then I lost New Hampshire, but I finished second. Then I lost Maine and finished third. Then I lost South Dakota and finished third. Then I lost in Colorado and finished second by a point. Then I lost in Maryland and finished second by a few points. I did not win -- and how many states have I gone through? Seven, six. My first victory was in Georgia. Then I won in South Carolina. Then I only lost in Connecticut from then on in. But even after months later, I lost a primary in Connecticut. So this is going to be a long process and you just have to be willing to -- if you believe you'd be the best president when you run, you know the outcome is uncertain, you'll have ups and downs, and you just have to believe it. But I think that the thing that I think she will regret that I always did is when you move out of the early states, you don't give as much time to do things like this, which I think are very good. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: Oh, that's very important. She said what else can we do to help New Orleans after Katrina. First of all, I work down there now with my foundation and we're trying to help the people like Brad Pitt's project build green houses and I've funded two schools that can be rebuilt as green schools. I'm trying to convince the people of New Orleans that if they made a serious commitment to be a completely green city, I could get them billions of dollars of investment, which I believe, and it would change things. So she has spent a lot of time down there independent of me and, in the beginning, they were just trying to get all the funds allocated. But there's still a lot of problems with the way the federal money that has already been appropriated has not been released and why. So the first thing I think she will do is to have somebody go down there, work with the city and the state, have a coordinator and figure out how to move this money in a way that is as quickly as possible, but maximally effective. In every disaster, this was true in the tsunami in South Asia, where I worked for two years with the U.N., in every disaster, the most difficult thing is getting people back in their housing. But it's too slow. So what she wants to do is to help them, but to also help them in ways that promotes sustainable development so we can develop a whole different sector of the New Orleans economy. Then she believes that we should have some effort to restore the wetlands, because keep in mind, when the water broke coming up that channel, if the wetlands south of New Orleans had been in the same condition they were 30 years earlier, the water would have been traveling at a speed half as fast and the gates might never have broken and most of the damage might never have been done. So she believes there needs to be a serious effort there. And then along the Gulf Coast, some of the barrier islands and sandbars have been severely eroded in front of the towns in Alabama and Mississippi, too, and she thinks that's an area of traditional federal responsibility, environmental restoration that we have not been sufficiently active in. QUESTION: You talked that Hillary Clinton polls very well in foreign countries, but most of those countries want money from us. And how do we know that Hillary Clinton isn't going to go to Washington and give away billions of our tax dollars? CLINTON: Well, the ones I mentioned are all countries that don't want any money from us. Europe and Canada we don't give foreign aid to. But for whatever it's worth, the United States gives the smallest percentage of its income in foreign aid of any wealthy country in the world. We give less than everybody else at a time when we know more than we have ever known about how to effectively give assistance to poor countries, which helps us and reduces future problems. If you educate people and you get rid of disease and you empower people economically in really poor countries, you make more friends and you have fewer wars in the future. It's as good thing to do. Since you mentioned it, I will tell you, again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think she is the only candidate that has recommended spending a few billion dollars to pay more than our fair share of putting the 130 million children in the world who never go to school into primary school, and you should support that. Why? Because one year of schooling in a poor country is worth 10 percent a year in extra income for life and because the world's population is now slated to grow from its current level of 6.5 billion to nine billion by mid-century. That's the same 40-year -- three-year period when all the rest of us are supposed to figure out how to reduce our greenhouse gases by 80 percent. It's going to be harder. The only thing we can do consistent with our values that unite people who are pro-choice and pro-life and all of that to stop that is to put all the girls of the world in school and give all the young women access to the labor market and it will cause... (APPLAUSE) ... I promise you, over a 20-year period, we'll save a fortune doing this. It will cause people to marry at later ages and to have their first children at later ages and to have smaller families and that will reduce dramatically the burden on the planet of managing this whole climate change thing. QUESTION: Recently, there's been a fair amount of discussion about what some say is undue influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington and how that negatively impacts the United States and, some people say, Israel, as well. How would Hillary -- would Hillary Clinton change that or continue? CLINTON: Well, I think, first, there are people who don't like Israel who always say that and it is true that we are a staunch ally of theirs and committed to their security. I think we make a mistake if we back every decision the Israeli government makes and that seemed to be President Bush's policy for a few years. But in fairness to them, they have reconvened the peace talks and they have shown some willingness to publicly pressure the Israelis not to expand settlements in the territories that will have to be given back to the Palestinians if we're ever going to have peace. I don't see it that way, though. I have to tell you, there's a reason that I made so much progress for seven years in peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's only because the United States -- because the Israelis believe that the United States cares profoundly whether we survive or not that we have the credibility with them to persuade them to make the concessions necessary to give the Palestinians a homeland and a decent life. I remember one time the president of one of the European countries called me after I left office and he said, "Tell me what I can do now in the Middle East." I said, "Well, we're old friends. Shall I tell you the truth or what you want to hear?" He said, "Tell me the truth." I said, "There's nothing you can do." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because the Israelis do not believe you care whether they live or die." And the United States has influence in the Middle East and can stand up for the Palestinians because the Israelis believe that we care whether they live or die. And so I think that it's important for us to be able to disagree with particular decisions of the Israeli government, but our security relationship with them and our commitment to them is what gives us a chance to make a deal for the Palestinians, and we have to do it. It should have been done already, but we've got a better chance now because all of the Sunni Arab states desperately want peace with Israel. They desperately want a political, military and security partnership with them, because they're more worried about Iran and they don't need the Israelis as a whipping boy to jump up in their own population anymore. So I agree with you, we have to be sensitive about this, but I just don't agree with that, the general idea that the United States government is in the hip pocket of the Israeli lobby. I think that Harry Truman was the first world leader to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. Israel was created by the United Nations and, therefore, even though the U.N. is often against Israel's political positions, they, too, have a right to exist. And the fact that we are prepared to protect that right gives us a leverage that we ought to use and we should use always, we should have been using in the years when President Bush got out of it, to push for peace and a fair deal for the Palestinians. They have been the most abused people on earth by their own leaders and by the other Arabs and, on occasion, by the Israelis, as well. Nobody's given them a break and we need to. Yes, the gentleman in the green suit, and then I've got to quit. I got a note here that says "Take another question and tell everyone you're going to Thayer Dining Hall to see all the people that couldn't get in here." QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality. For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama. CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day. But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor from the beginning, always, always, always." First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way. Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since." Give me a break. (APPLAUSE) This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa. But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. (APPLAUSE) Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject. (LAUGHTER) Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: He said there's a problem with ethanol because you always have pesticide runoffs and some people believe it's not a net positive in carbon emissions. Actually, I've ready every bit of the data I can on this, because I'm, as I told you, heavily involved in this. I believe it is a net positive, but not a very good one. It's about two-to-one net. The United States would be far better off, even the corn farmers in the middle west would be better off producing ethanol from cellulosic substances. That is, basically, the residue from harvesting crops, switch grass, fast growing willows in upstate New York and other places, any kind of organic material. That will produce four gallons of ethanol for every one gallon of gasoline. The problem is you have to use an enzyme process to turn the organic material into a sugar-like substance to make it into ethanol and the enzyme conversion process is more than twice as expensive today. But you're right, if, like -- let's take all these Iowa ethanol plants that have been built, for example. They can all be converted to cellulosic ethanol and they're even beginning to build them now there. If you do that, what will happen is it will moderate corn prices, which will be good. You will plant more wheat, which will good, and more land will be put into conservation reserve, which will be good. But there are tradeoffs here that we're going to have to work through all over the world. The best ethanol in the world for conversion purposes is Brazilian sugar cane. It's eight gallons of ethanol for every one gallon, but the demand for it has gotten so high now, they're taking down land in the Atlantic rain forest, not in Amazonia, but in the Atlantic rain forest, which is terrible because it undermines the biodiversity of the planet and tropical rain forests absorb far more greenhouse gases that forests in New Hampshire, we know, the closer you get. So it's something that we're all just going to have to work through and it may be that there'll have to be some legislation on this at some point, but we are so far from where we need to be, I think that the thing we should work on and one of the things Hillary has proposed is that we increase the tax differential for cellulosic ethanol and increase the research budget to get the cost down so that we make it economical now to do. If we do that, I think that would address a lot of your concerns. The other thing is that until we get to a hydrogen vehicle, and I've actually been in one, but we can't make them for less than quarter of a million bucks, they're safe now and they're good and you can run in them, but the best thing we can do is to move as quickly as possible to electric plug-in hybrids, which would use biofuels and electricity. How many people have a hybrid vehicle here, anybody? Well, you can drive it to 25 or 30 miles an hour on the battery and then it switches to gas. So they'll get -- like, I've got a mini-SUV that we drive around, it's about 40 miles to the gallon in the city. Once you get a battery that is strong enough to last all day, that will drive it at 60 miles a gallon, then you're getting 100 miles a gallon. If you get to 50 miles a gallon, then you're not probably going to get to 100 miles a gallon. There are several of these experimental vehicles now being driven in the United States getting 100 miles a gallon and you bring them in at night and plug them in and it's all you have to do. That's really where we ought to go. The problem is the lithium batteries are very powerful, but we haven't figured out how to produce them at a cost where you can afford to buy the cars. But we'll get there pretty soon. That I think is the biggest, best near-term solution and it's very important. Keep in mind, 70 percent of all the oil in this country is used for transportation and you don't need any of it to get around. Next time you get in the car, you remember that. The only place we need oils today is to fly around in jet airplanes. Nobody's figured out how to lift a heavy airplane off the ground and fly it a long way at a fast speed without jet diesel fuel. Every other use of oil to move is optional. So we need to do more rail, more fast rail. We need to do more electric hybrid. We need to move to all this. But there's so little of this ethanol production now, it's not a problem, but if that became our main source of clean fuels, it would be a real problem. And so what you're basically doing is raising a warning flag that should move us into the cellulosic ethanol and into the electric hybrid vehicles as soon as possible. I'm sorry, I've got to go. Thank you. I hope you'll vote for Hillary tomorrow. Thanks. (APPLAUSE) END
BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH
[BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH] [HANOVER, NH USA] FTG OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON'S (D-NY) HUSBAND BILL AND DAUGHTER CHELSEA SPEAKING AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE I don't understand why Lou Dobbs is against this and keeps calling this amnesty. A conservative ought to be for giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, because it's the only way of identifying who's in this country. So, for example, let's just -- suppose we said, OK, for the next six months, every undocumented immigrant can sign up and do what Hillary, Senator McCain -- he's the only Republican, I think, for this -- and most of our crowd says, let them -- you know, they have to move behind all the people who have legally applied for citizenship, take English classes, pay a small fine, and then they become eligible to be citizens. If 11,950,000 people sign up, it is much easier to find the terrorist needle in a haystack of 50,000 than in a haystack of 12 million. Someone ought to ask Tancredo and Lou Dobbs and all these people why they don't agree with that. They keep talking about amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. These people are here working, doing things. We need to know who's here. She favors that. She thinks it may be necessary to lift the quotas, to have higher quotas in some areas, and it is also then important, once you do all this, to really enforce the workplace laws, because there are places -- and we know them. We've got plenty of evidence on this. I live in a county where immigrants do jobs that other people wouldn't do and in a county where immigrants have been abused in the workplace so they could be paid less and American citizens wouldn't have to be paid more. In other words, I've seen both sides of this. And so it's very important that if we have immigration reform, we then go back and enforce the workplace laws. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of tension between people at the lower wage levels and ethnic tensions among African-Americans and Hispanics, for example, and others that we're not doing the right thing by the law. So we have to have a comprehensive solution and I think it's the fairest one. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) more diplomatic in its relations with other countries. So how do you reconcile that with Hillary's vote, I think in 2007, to declare Iran's national guard a terrorist organization? CLINTON: Oh, because I think it is. First, it is, as a factual matter. First, it is. And, secondly, we now know, we have evidence that keeping the economic heat on Iran works. The latest National Intelligence Estimate says they stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. You remember that? It just came out. And that they stopped it, in part, because they're trying to avoid economic sanctions. No serious person thought that that was any kind of a red light to attack Iran and I have evidence. Remember, who was the sponsor of the Iran legislation that Hillary voted for? Senator Carl Levin, who was also the sponsor of the anti-authorization Iraq bill. That is, there were two competing Iraq resolutions. One, contrary to popular belief, did not authorize the president to attack Iraq, regardless. It authorized the president to use force if Iraq flunked the sanctions, if they didn't cooperate. The other by Levin, who turned out to be prescient, said "I understand why you need the pressure to get him to cooperate, but I don't really trust the president. So he can't use force until he comes back. If they flunk the sanctions, tell him to come back to the Congress for an authorization to use force." So Levin -- that's where Levin's coming from. He never would have offered a resolution that would have been a backdoor way to justify an attack on Iran. It was just a question of whether you believe that a part of our diplomacy with Iran is tightening economic sanctions when they're doing things that are against our values and interest and against international law. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Hillary and anything she's said or done so far. CLINTON: I don't think it's changed her platform, but I think she'll have to run as the underdog for a while now, which is good. It ought to be hard to get to be president. It ought to be hard for everybody. It's good. I didn't win a -- I didn't win a single... (APPLAUSE) You know, and I didn't like it when people wrote up and acted like she was entitled to be nominated. She never did. As I told you, I told her a year ago, January a year ago, the nomination will be hard and you win the general election handily if you get nominated. I still believe that. But the real problem for us is I think it was a real disadvantage in New Hampshire because you get a 17-to-24 imbalance out of winning Iowa in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, I'd like to believe they're independent, but the truth is they're influenced by the news. And it was a really unfortunate development for her that New Hampshire moved its election to five days after Iowa. If you'd stayed further back, which would have put you closer to Nevada and South Carolina, I think that it would have been better for her, because I think she got the -- the election finally -- we had our first thing that resembled almost a real debate in the New Hampshire debate. It was the first time there were any distinctions drawn. It was, from my point of view, better than any of the ones we had before. But I think what she has to do is just to be fair, to get out there and keep running. Let me remind you -- and I think she's picked up a lot in the last two days. I can just feel it. But there's just only so much you can do against the tidal wave of listening. In New Hampshire-ites, as I said, you might think they're making independent judgments, but you can't help but be affected by the press. And I think that what she needs to do is to remember that this is a long process, and so do the others. I mean, I lost, I got murdered in Iowa, where I didn't even compete, because they had an Iowa Senator running. Then I lost New Hampshire, but I finished second. Then I lost Maine and finished third. Then I lost South Dakota and finished third. Then I lost in Colorado and finished second by a point. Then I lost in Maryland and finished second by a few points. I did not win -- and how many states have I gone through? Seven, six. My first victory was in Georgia. Then I won in South Carolina. Then I only lost in Connecticut from then on in. But even after months later, I lost a primary in Connecticut. So this is going to be a long process and you just have to be willing to -- if you believe you'd be the best president when you run, you know the outcome is uncertain, you'll have ups and downs, and you just have to believe it. But I think that the thing that I think she will regret that I always did is when you move out of the early states, you don't give as much time to do things like this, which I think are very good. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: Oh, that's very important. She said what else can we do to help New Orleans after Katrina. First of all, I work down there now with my foundation and we're trying to help the people like Brad Pitt's project build green houses and I've funded two schools that can be rebuilt as green schools. I'm trying to convince the people of New Orleans that if they made a serious commitment to be a completely green city, I could get them billions of dollars of investment, which I believe, and it would change things. So she has spent a lot of time down there independent of me and, in the beginning, they were just trying to get all the funds allocated. But there's still a lot of problems with the way the federal money that has already been appropriated has not been released and why. So the first thing I think she will do is to have somebody go down there, work with the city and the state, have a coordinator and figure out how to move this money in a way that is as quickly as possible, but maximally effective. In every disaster, this was true in the tsunami in South Asia, where I worked for two years with the U.N., in every disaster, the most difficult thing is getting people back in their housing. But it's too slow. So what she wants to do is to help them, but to also help them in ways that promotes sustainable development so we can develop a whole different sector of the New Orleans economy. Then she believes that we should have some effort to restore the wetlands, because keep in mind, when the water broke coming up that channel, if the wetlands south of New Orleans had been in the same condition they were 30 years earlier, the water would have been traveling at a speed half as fast and the gates might never have broken and most of the damage might never have been done. So she believes there needs to be a serious effort there. And then along the Gulf Coast, some of the barrier islands and sandbars have been severely eroded in front of the towns in Alabama and Mississippi, too, and she thinks that's an area of traditional federal responsibility, environmental restoration that we have not been sufficiently active in. QUESTION: You talked that Hillary Clinton polls very well in foreign countries, but most of those countries want money from us. And how do we know that Hillary Clinton isn't going to go to Washington and give away billions of our tax dollars? CLINTON: Well, the ones I mentioned are all countries that don't want any money from us. Europe and Canada we don't give foreign aid to. But for whatever it's worth, the United States gives the smallest percentage of its income in foreign aid of any wealthy country in the world. We give less than everybody else at a time when we know more than we have ever known about how to effectively give assistance to poor countries, which helps us and reduces future problems. If you educate people and you get rid of disease and you empower people economically in really poor countries, you make more friends and you have fewer wars in the future. It's as good thing to do. Since you mentioned it, I will tell you, again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think she is the only candidate that has recommended spending a few billion dollars to pay more than our fair share of putting the 130 million children in the world who never go to school into primary school, and you should support that. Why? Because one year of schooling in a poor country is worth 10 percent a year in extra income for life and because the world's population is now slated to grow from its current level of 6.5 billion to nine billion by mid-century. That's the same 40-year -- three-year period when all the rest of us are supposed to figure out how to reduce our greenhouse gases by 80 percent. It's going to be harder. The only thing we can do consistent with our values that unite people who are pro-choice and pro-life and all of that to stop that is to put all the girls of the world in school and give all the young women access to the labor market and it will cause... (APPLAUSE) ... I promise you, over a 20-year period, we'll save a fortune doing this. It will cause people to marry at later ages and to have their first children at later ages and to have smaller families and that will reduce dramatically the burden on the planet of managing this whole climate change thing. QUESTION: Recently, there's been a fair amount of discussion about what some say is undue influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington and how that negatively impacts the United States and, some people say, Israel, as well. How would Hillary -- would Hillary Clinton change that or continue? CLINTON: Well, I think, first, there are people who don't like Israel who always say that and it is true that we are a staunch ally of theirs and committed to their security. I think we make a mistake if we back every decision the Israeli government makes and that seemed to be President Bush's policy for a few years. But in fairness to them, they have reconvened the peace talks and they have shown some willingness to publicly pressure the Israelis not to expand settlements in the territories that will have to be given back to the Palestinians if we're ever going to have peace. I don't see it that way, though. I have to tell you, there's a reason that I made so much progress for seven years in peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's only because the United States -- because the Israelis believe that the United States cares profoundly whether we survive or not that we have the credibility with them to persuade them to make the concessions necessary to give the Palestinians a homeland and a decent life. I remember one time the president of one of the European countries called me after I left office and he said, "Tell me what I can do now in the Middle East." I said, "Well, we're old friends. Shall I tell you the truth or what you want to hear?" He said, "Tell me the truth." I said, "There's nothing you can do." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because the Israelis do not believe you care whether they live or die." And the United States has influence in the Middle East and can stand up for the Palestinians because the Israelis believe that we care whether they live or die. And so I think that it's important for us to be able to disagree with particular decisions of the Israeli government, but our security relationship with them and our commitment to them is what gives us a chance to make a deal for the Palestinians, and we have to do it. It should have been done already, but we've got a better chance now because all of the Sunni Arab states desperately want peace with Israel. They desperately want a political, military and security partnership with them, because they're more worried about Iran and they don't need the Israelis as a whipping boy to jump up in their own population anymore. So I agree with you, we have to be sensitive about this, but I just don't agree with that, the general idea that the United States government is in the hip pocket of the Israeli lobby. I think that Harry Truman was the first world leader to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. Israel was created by the United Nations and, therefore, even though the U.N. is often against Israel's political positions, they, too, have a right to exist. And the fact that we are prepared to protect that right gives us a leverage that we ought to use and we should use always, we should have been using in the years when President Bush got out of it, to push for peace and a fair deal for the Palestinians. They have been the most abused people on earth by their own leaders and by the other Arabs and, on occasion, by the Israelis, as well. Nobody's given them a break and we need to. Yes, the gentleman in the green suit, and then I've got to quit. I got a note here that says "Take another question and tell everyone you're going to Thayer Dining Hall to see all the people that couldn't get in here." QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality. For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama. CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day. But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor from the beginning, always, always, always." First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way. Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since." Give me a break. (APPLAUSE) This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa. But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. (APPLAUSE) Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject. (LAUGHTER) Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: He said there's a problem with ethanol because you always have pesticide runoffs and some people believe it's not a net positive in carbon emissions. Actually, I've ready every bit of the data I can on this, because I'm, as I told you, heavily involved in this. I believe it is a net positive, but not a very good one. It's about two-to-one net. The United States would be far better off, even the corn farmers in the middle west would be better off producing ethanol from cellulosic substances. That is, basically, the residue from harvesting crops, switch grass, fast growing willows in upstate New York and other places, any kind of organic material. That will produce four gallons of ethanol for every one gallon of gasoline. The problem is you have to use an enzyme process to turn the organic material into a sugar-like substance to make it into ethanol and the enzyme conversion process is more than twice as expensive today. But you're right, if, like -- let's take all these Iowa ethanol plants that have been built, for example. They can all be converted to cellulosic ethanol and they're even beginning to build them now there. If you do that, what will happen is it will moderate corn prices, which will be good. You will plant more wheat, which will good, and more land will be put into conservation reserve, which will be good. But there are tradeoffs here that we're going to have to work through all over the world. The best ethanol in the world for conversion purposes is Brazilian sugar cane. It's eight gallons of ethanol for every one gallon, but the demand for it has gotten so high now, they're taking down land in the Atlantic rain forest, not in Amazonia, but in the Atlantic rain forest, which is terrible because it undermines the biodiversity of the planet and tropical rain forests absorb far more greenhouse gases that forests in New Hampshire, we know, the closer you get. So it's something that we're all just going to have to work through and it may be that there'll have to be some legislation on this at some point, but we are so far from where we need to be, I think that the thing we should work on and one of the things Hillary has proposed is that we increase the tax differential for cellulosic ethanol and increase the research budget to get the cost down so that we make it economical now to do. If we do that, I think that would address a lot of your concerns. The other thing is that until we get to a hydrogen vehicle, and I've actually been in one, but we can't make them for less than quarter of a million bucks, they're safe now and they're good and you can run in them, but the best thing we can do is to move as quickly as possible to electric plug-in hybrids, which would use biofuels and electricity. How many people have a hybrid vehicle here, anybody? Well, you can drive it to 25 or 30 miles an hour on the battery and then it switches to gas. So they'll get -- like, I've got a mini-SUV that we drive around, it's about 40 miles to the gallon in the city. Once you get a battery that is strong enough to last all day, that will drive it at 60 miles a gallon, then you're getting 100 miles a gallon. If you get to 50 miles a gallon, then you're not probably going to get to 100 miles a gallon. There are several of these experimental vehicles now being driven in the United States getting 100 miles a gallon and you bring them in at night and plug them in and it's all you have to do. That's really where we ought to go. The problem is the lithium batteries are very powerful, but we haven't figured out how to produce them at a cost where you can afford to buy the cars. But we'll get there pretty soon. That I think is the biggest, best near-term solution and it's very important. Keep in mind, 70 percent of all the oil in this country is used for transportation and you don't need any of it to get around. Next time you get in the car, you remember that. The only place we need oils today is to fly around in jet airplanes. Nobody's figured out how to lift a heavy airplane off the ground and fly it a long way at a fast speed without jet diesel fuel. Every other use of oil to move is optional. So we need to do more rail, more fast rail. We need to do more electric hybrid. We need to move to all this. But there's so little of this ethanol production now, it's not a problem, but if that became our main source of clean fuels, it would be a real problem. And so what you're basically doing is raising a warning flag that should move us into the cellulosic ethanol and into the electric hybrid vehicles as soon as possible. I'm sorry, I've got to go. Thank you. I hope you'll vote for Hillary tomorrow. Thanks. (APPLAUSE) END
BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH
[BILL CLINTON W/ CHELSEA AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN NH] [HANOVER, NH USA] FTG OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON'S (D-NY) HUSBAND BILL AND DAUGHTER CHELSEA SPEAKING AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE IN HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE I don't understand why Lou Dobbs is against this and keeps calling this amnesty. A conservative ought to be for giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, because it's the only way of identifying who's in this country. So, for example, let's just -- suppose we said, OK, for the next six months, every undocumented immigrant can sign up and do what Hillary, Senator McCain -- he's the only Republican, I think, for this -- and most of our crowd says, let them -- you know, they have to move behind all the people who have legally applied for citizenship, take English classes, pay a small fine, and then they become eligible to be citizens. If 11,950,000 people sign up, it is much easier to find the terrorist needle in a haystack of 50,000 than in a haystack of 12 million. Someone ought to ask Tancredo and Lou Dobbs and all these people why they don't agree with that. They keep talking about amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. These people are here working, doing things. We need to know who's here. She favors that. She thinks it may be necessary to lift the quotas, to have higher quotas in some areas, and it is also then important, once you do all this, to really enforce the workplace laws, because there are places -- and we know them. We've got plenty of evidence on this. I live in a county where immigrants do jobs that other people wouldn't do and in a county where immigrants have been abused in the workplace so they could be paid less and American citizens wouldn't have to be paid more. In other words, I've seen both sides of this. And so it's very important that if we have immigration reform, we then go back and enforce the workplace laws. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of tension between people at the lower wage levels and ethnic tensions among African-Americans and Hispanics, for example, and others that we're not doing the right thing by the law. So we have to have a comprehensive solution and I think it's the fairest one. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) more diplomatic in its relations with other countries. So how do you reconcile that with Hillary's vote, I think in 2007, to declare Iran's national guard a terrorist organization? CLINTON: Oh, because I think it is. First, it is, as a factual matter. First, it is. And, secondly, we now know, we have evidence that keeping the economic heat on Iran works. The latest National Intelligence Estimate says they stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. You remember that? It just came out. And that they stopped it, in part, because they're trying to avoid economic sanctions. No serious person thought that that was any kind of a red light to attack Iran and I have evidence. Remember, who was the sponsor of the Iran legislation that Hillary voted for? Senator Carl Levin, who was also the sponsor of the anti-authorization Iraq bill. That is, there were two competing Iraq resolutions. One, contrary to popular belief, did not authorize the president to attack Iraq, regardless. It authorized the president to use force if Iraq flunked the sanctions, if they didn't cooperate. The other by Levin, who turned out to be prescient, said "I understand why you need the pressure to get him to cooperate, but I don't really trust the president. So he can't use force until he comes back. If they flunk the sanctions, tell him to come back to the Congress for an authorization to use force." So Levin -- that's where Levin's coming from. He never would have offered a resolution that would have been a backdoor way to justify an attack on Iran. It was just a question of whether you believe that a part of our diplomacy with Iran is tightening economic sanctions when they're doing things that are against our values and interest and against international law. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Hillary and anything she's said or done so far. CLINTON: I don't think it's changed her platform, but I think she'll have to run as the underdog for a while now, which is good. It ought to be hard to get to be president. It ought to be hard for everybody. It's good. I didn't win a -- I didn't win a single... (APPLAUSE) You know, and I didn't like it when people wrote up and acted like she was entitled to be nominated. She never did. As I told you, I told her a year ago, January a year ago, the nomination will be hard and you win the general election handily if you get nominated. I still believe that. But the real problem for us is I think it was a real disadvantage in New Hampshire because you get a 17-to-24 imbalance out of winning Iowa in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, I'd like to believe they're independent, but the truth is they're influenced by the news. And it was a really unfortunate development for her that New Hampshire moved its election to five days after Iowa. If you'd stayed further back, which would have put you closer to Nevada and South Carolina, I think that it would have been better for her, because I think she got the -- the election finally -- we had our first thing that resembled almost a real debate in the New Hampshire debate. It was the first time there were any distinctions drawn. It was, from my point of view, better than any of the ones we had before. But I think what she has to do is just to be fair, to get out there and keep running. Let me remind you -- and I think she's picked up a lot in the last two days. I can just feel it. But there's just only so much you can do against the tidal wave of listening. In New Hampshire-ites, as I said, you might think they're making independent judgments, but you can't help but be affected by the press. And I think that what she needs to do is to remember that this is a long process, and so do the others. I mean, I lost, I got murdered in Iowa, where I didn't even compete, because they had an Iowa Senator running. Then I lost New Hampshire, but I finished second. Then I lost Maine and finished third. Then I lost South Dakota and finished third. Then I lost in Colorado and finished second by a point. Then I lost in Maryland and finished second by a few points. I did not win -- and how many states have I gone through? Seven, six. My first victory was in Georgia. Then I won in South Carolina. Then I only lost in Connecticut from then on in. But even after months later, I lost a primary in Connecticut. So this is going to be a long process and you just have to be willing to -- if you believe you'd be the best president when you run, you know the outcome is uncertain, you'll have ups and downs, and you just have to believe it. But I think that the thing that I think she will regret that I always did is when you move out of the early states, you don't give as much time to do things like this, which I think are very good. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: Oh, that's very important. She said what else can we do to help New Orleans after Katrina. First of all, I work down there now with my foundation and we're trying to help the people like Brad Pitt's project build green houses and I've funded two schools that can be rebuilt as green schools. I'm trying to convince the people of New Orleans that if they made a serious commitment to be a completely green city, I could get them billions of dollars of investment, which I believe, and it would change things. So she has spent a lot of time down there independent of me and, in the beginning, they were just trying to get all the funds allocated. But there's still a lot of problems with the way the federal money that has already been appropriated has not been released and why. So the first thing I think she will do is to have somebody go down there, work with the city and the state, have a coordinator and figure out how to move this money in a way that is as quickly as possible, but maximally effective. In every disaster, this was true in the tsunami in South Asia, where I worked for two years with the U.N., in every disaster, the most difficult thing is getting people back in their housing. But it's too slow. So what she wants to do is to help them, but to also help them in ways that promotes sustainable development so we can develop a whole different sector of the New Orleans economy. Then she believes that we should have some effort to restore the wetlands, because keep in mind, when the water broke coming up that channel, if the wetlands south of New Orleans had been in the same condition they were 30 years earlier, the water would have been traveling at a speed half as fast and the gates might never have broken and most of the damage might never have been done. So she believes there needs to be a serious effort there. And then along the Gulf Coast, some of the barrier islands and sandbars have been severely eroded in front of the towns in Alabama and Mississippi, too, and she thinks that's an area of traditional federal responsibility, environmental restoration that we have not been sufficiently active in. QUESTION: You talked that Hillary Clinton polls very well in foreign countries, but most of those countries want money from us. And how do we know that Hillary Clinton isn't going to go to Washington and give away billions of our tax dollars? CLINTON: Well, the ones I mentioned are all countries that don't want any money from us. Europe and Canada we don't give foreign aid to. But for whatever it's worth, the United States gives the smallest percentage of its income in foreign aid of any wealthy country in the world. We give less than everybody else at a time when we know more than we have ever known about how to effectively give assistance to poor countries, which helps us and reduces future problems. If you educate people and you get rid of disease and you empower people economically in really poor countries, you make more friends and you have fewer wars in the future. It's as good thing to do. Since you mentioned it, I will tell you, again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think she is the only candidate that has recommended spending a few billion dollars to pay more than our fair share of putting the 130 million children in the world who never go to school into primary school, and you should support that. Why? Because one year of schooling in a poor country is worth 10 percent a year in extra income for life and because the world's population is now slated to grow from its current level of 6.5 billion to nine billion by mid-century. That's the same 40-year -- three-year period when all the rest of us are supposed to figure out how to reduce our greenhouse gases by 80 percent. It's going to be harder. The only thing we can do consistent with our values that unite people who are pro-choice and pro-life and all of that to stop that is to put all the girls of the world in school and give all the young women access to the labor market and it will cause... (APPLAUSE) ... I promise you, over a 20-year period, we'll save a fortune doing this. It will cause people to marry at later ages and to have their first children at later ages and to have smaller families and that will reduce dramatically the burden on the planet of managing this whole climate change thing. QUESTION: Recently, there's been a fair amount of discussion about what some say is undue influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington and how that negatively impacts the United States and, some people say, Israel, as well. How would Hillary -- would Hillary Clinton change that or continue? CLINTON: Well, I think, first, there are people who don't like Israel who always say that and it is true that we are a staunch ally of theirs and committed to their security. I think we make a mistake if we back every decision the Israeli government makes and that seemed to be President Bush's policy for a few years. But in fairness to them, they have reconvened the peace talks and they have shown some willingness to publicly pressure the Israelis not to expand settlements in the territories that will have to be given back to the Palestinians if we're ever going to have peace. I don't see it that way, though. I have to tell you, there's a reason that I made so much progress for seven years in peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's only because the United States -- because the Israelis believe that the United States cares profoundly whether we survive or not that we have the credibility with them to persuade them to make the concessions necessary to give the Palestinians a homeland and a decent life. I remember one time the president of one of the European countries called me after I left office and he said, "Tell me what I can do now in the Middle East." I said, "Well, we're old friends. Shall I tell you the truth or what you want to hear?" He said, "Tell me the truth." I said, "There's nothing you can do." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because the Israelis do not believe you care whether they live or die." And the United States has influence in the Middle East and can stand up for the Palestinians because the Israelis believe that we care whether they live or die. And so I think that it's important for us to be able to disagree with particular decisions of the Israeli government, but our security relationship with them and our commitment to them is what gives us a chance to make a deal for the Palestinians, and we have to do it. It should have been done already, but we've got a better chance now because all of the Sunni Arab states desperately want peace with Israel. They desperately want a political, military and security partnership with them, because they're more worried about Iran and they don't need the Israelis as a whipping boy to jump up in their own population anymore. So I agree with you, we have to be sensitive about this, but I just don't agree with that, the general idea that the United States government is in the hip pocket of the Israeli lobby. I think that Harry Truman was the first world leader to recognize the existence of the state of Israel. Israel was created by the United Nations and, therefore, even though the U.N. is often against Israel's political positions, they, too, have a right to exist. And the fact that we are prepared to protect that right gives us a leverage that we ought to use and we should use always, we should have been using in the years when President Bush got out of it, to push for peace and a fair deal for the Palestinians. They have been the most abused people on earth by their own leaders and by the other Arabs and, on occasion, by the Israelis, as well. Nobody's given them a break and we need to. Yes, the gentleman in the green suit, and then I've got to quit. I got a note here that says "Take another question and tell everyone you're going to Thayer Dining Hall to see all the people that couldn't get in here." QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality. For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama. CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day. But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor from the beginning, always, always, always." First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way. Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since." Give me a break. (APPLAUSE) This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa. But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. (APPLAUSE) Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject. (LAUGHTER) Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) CLINTON: He said there's a problem with ethanol because you always have pesticide runoffs and some people believe it's not a net positive in carbon emissions. Actually, I've ready every bit of the data I can on this, because I'm, as I told you, heavily involved in this. I believe it is a net positive, but not a very good one. It's about two-to-one net. The United States would be far better off, even the corn farmers in the middle west would be better off producing ethanol from cellulosic substances. That is, basically, the residue from harvesting crops, switch grass, fast growing willows in upstate New York and other places, any kind of organic material. That will produce four gallons of ethanol for every one gallon of gasoline. The problem is you have to use an enzyme process to turn the organic material into a sugar-like substance to make it into ethanol and the enzyme conversion process is more than twice as expensive today. But you're right, if, like -- let's take all these Iowa ethanol plants that have been built, for example. They can all be converted to cellulosic ethanol and they're even beginning to build them now there. If you do that, what will happen is it will moderate corn prices, which will be good. You will plant more wheat, which will good, and more land will be put into conservation reserve, which will be good. But there are tradeoffs here that we're going to have to work through all over the world. The best ethanol in the world for conversion purposes is Brazilian sugar cane. It's eight gallons of ethanol for every one gallon, but the demand for it has gotten so high now, they're taking down land in the Atlantic rain forest, not in Amazonia, but in the Atlantic rain forest, which is terrible because it undermines the biodiversity of the planet and tropical rain forests absorb far more greenhouse gases that forests in New Hampshire, we know, the closer you get. So it's something that we're all just going to have to work through and it may be that there'll have to be some legislation on this at some point, but we are so far from where we need to be, I think that the thing we should work on and one of the things Hillary has proposed is that we increase the tax differential for cellulosic ethanol and increase the research budget to get the cost down so that we make it economical now to do. If we do that, I think that would address a lot of your concerns. The other thing is that until we get to a hydrogen vehicle, and I've actually been in one, but we can't make them for less than quarter of a million bucks, they're safe now and they're good and you can run in them, but the best thing we can do is to move as quickly as possible to electric plug-in hybrids, which would use biofuels and electricity. How many people have a hybrid vehicle here, anybody? Well, you can drive it to 25 or 30 miles an hour on the battery and then it switches to gas. So they'll get -- like, I've got a mini-SUV that we drive around, it's about 40 miles to the gallon in the city. Once you get a battery that is strong enough to last all day, that will drive it at 60 miles a gallon, then you're getting 100 miles a gallon. If you get to 50 miles a gallon, then you're not probably going to get to 100 miles a gallon. There are several of these experimental vehicles now being driven in the United States getting 100 miles a gallon and you bring them in at night and plug them in and it's all you have to do. That's really where we ought to go. The problem is the lithium batteries are very powerful, but we haven't figured out how to produce them at a cost where you can afford to buy the cars. But we'll get there pretty soon. That I think is the biggest, best near-term solution and it's very important. Keep in mind, 70 percent of all the oil in this country is used for transportation and you don't need any of it to get around. Next time you get in the car, you remember that. The only place we need oils today is to fly around in jet airplanes. Nobody's figured out how to lift a heavy airplane off the ground and fly it a long way at a fast speed without jet diesel fuel. Every other use of oil to move is optional. So we need to do more rail, more fast rail. We need to do more electric hybrid. We need to move to all this. But there's so little of this ethanol production now, it's not a problem, but if that became our main source of clean fuels, it would be a real problem. And so what you're basically doing is raising a warning flag that should move us into the cellulosic ethanol and into the electric hybrid vehicles as soon as possible. I'm sorry, I've got to go. Thank you. I hope you'll vote for Hillary tomorrow. Thanks. (APPLAUSE) END