H illary and I began the first day of the new century and the last year of my presidency1 with a joint2 radio address to the American people, which was also televised live. We had stayed up with the revelers at the White House until about two-thirty in the morning, and we were tired but eager to mark this day. A remarkable3 worldwide celebration had taken place the night before: billions of people had watched on television as midnight broke first in Asia, then in Europe, then in Africa, South America, and finally North America. The United States was entering the new century of global interdependence with a unique combination of economic success, social solidarity6, and national self-confidence, and with our openness, dynamism, and democratic values being celebrated7 the world over. Hillary and I said that we Americans had to make the most of this opportunity to keep making our own country better and to spread the benefits and share the burdens of the twenty-firstcentury world. Thats what I intended to spend my last year doing.
Defying historical trends, the seventh year of my presidency had been full of achievement because we had continued to work on the publics business through the impeachment9 process and afterward10, following the agenda laid out in the State of the Union address and dealing11 with problems and opportunities as they arose. The traditional winding12 down in the last half of a Presidents second term had not occurred. I was determined13 not to let it happen this year, either.
The new year brought the loss of one of my old partners, as Boris Yeltsin resigned and was succeeded by Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin had never fully14 recovered his strength and stamina15 after his heart surgery, and he believed Putin was ready to succeed him and able to put in the long hours the job required. Boris also knew that giving the Russian people the chance to see Putin perform would increase the chances that he would win the next election. It was both a wise and a shrewd move, but I was going to miss Yeltsin. For all his physical problems and occasional unpredictability, he had been a courageous16 and visionary leader. We trusted each other and had accomplished17 a lot together. On the day he resigned we talked on the phone for about twenty minutes, and I could tell he was comfortable with his decision. He left office as he had lived and governed, in his own unique way.
On January 3, I went to Shepherdstown, West Virginia, to open peace talks between Syria and Israel. Ehud Barak had pressed me hard to hold the talks early in the year. He was growing impatient over the peace process with Arafat, and was unsure whether their differences over Jerusalem could be resolved. By contrast, he had told me months before that he was prepared to give the Golan Heights back to Syria as long as Israels concerns could be satisfied about its early-warning station on the Golan and its dependence4 on Lake Tiberias, otherwise known as the Sea of Galilee, for one-third of its water supply.
The Sea of Galilee is a unique body of water: the bottom part is salt water fed by underground springs, while the top layer is fresh water. Because fresh water is lighter18, care had to be taken not to draw down the lake too much in any given year lest the covering layer of fresh water becomes too light to hold the salt water down. If the fresh water were to fall below a certain point, the salt water could rush upward and mix with it, taking out a water supply that is essential for Israel.
Before he was killed, Yitzhak Rabin had given me a commitment to withdraw from the Golan to the June 4, 1967, borders as long as Israels concerns were satisfied. The commitment was given on the condition that I keep it in my pocket until it could be formally presented to Syria in the context of a complete solution. After Yitzhaks death, Shimon Peres reaffirmed the pocket commitment, and on this basis we had sponsored talks between the Syrians and the Israelis in 1996 at Wye River. Peres wanted me to sign a security treaty with Israel if it gave up the Golan, an idea that was suggested to me later by Netanyahu and would be advanced again by Barak. I had told them I was willing to do it.
Dennis Ross and our team had been making progress until Bibi Netanyahu defeated Peres in the election amid a rash of terrorist activity. Then the Syrian negotiations19 faltered20. Now Barak wanted to start them up again, though as yet he was unwilling21 to reaffirm the precise words of the Rabin pocket commitment.
Barak had to contend with a very different Israeli electorate22 from the one Rabin had led. There were many more immigrants, and the Russians in particular were opposed to giving up the Golan. Natan Sharansky, who had become a hero in the West during his long imprisonment23 in the Soviet24 Union and had accompanied Netanyahu to Wye in 1998, explained the Russian Jews attitude to me. He said they had come from the worlds largest country to one of its smallest ones, and didnt believe in making Israel even smaller by giving up the Golan or the West Bank. They also considered Syria to be no threat to Israel. They werent at peace but were not at war either. If Syria attacked Israel, the Israelis could win easily. Why give up the Golan?
While Barak didnt agree with this view, he had to contend with it. Nevertheless, he wanted to make peace with Syria, was confident the issues could be resolved, and wanted me to convene25 negotiations as soon as possible. By January, I had been working for more than three months with the Syrian foreign minister, Farouk al-Shara, and by telephone with President Assad to set the stage for the talks. Assad was not in good health and wanted to regain26 the Golan before he died, but he had to be careful. He wanted his son Bashar to succeed him, and apart from his own conviction that Syria should get back all the land it had occupied before June 4, 1967, he had to make an agreement that would not be subject to attack from forces within Syria whose support his son would need.
Assads frailty27 and a stroke suffered by Foreign Minister Shara in the fall of 1999 heightened Baraks sense of urgency. At his request, I sent Assad a letter saying I thought Barak was willing to make a deal if we could resolve the definition of the border, the control of water, and the early-warning post, and that if they did reach agreement, the United States would be prepared to establish bilateral28 relations with Syria, a move Barak had urged. That was a big step for us, given Syrias past support of terrorism. Of course, Assad would have to stop supporting terrorism in order to achieve normal relations with the U.S., but if he had the Golan back, the incentive29 to support the Hezbollah terrorists who attacked Israel from Lebanon would evaporate.
Barak wanted peace with Lebanon, too, because he had committed to withdrawing Israeli forces from the country by the end of the year, and a peace agreement would make Israel safer from Hezbollah attacks along the border, and would not make it appear that Israel had withdrawn30 because of the attacks. As he well knew, no agreement with Lebanon would come without Syrias consent and involvement.
Assad replied a month later in a letter that appeared to back away from his previous position, perhaps because of the uncertainties32 in Syria that his and Sharas health problems had caused. However, a few weeks after that, when Madeleine Albright and Dennis Ross went to see Assad and Shara, who seemed completely recovered, Assad told them that he wanted to resume negotiations and was ready to make peace because he believed Barak was serious. He even agreed to have Shara negotiate, something he had not done before, as long as Barak would personally handle the Israeli side.
Barak accepted eagerly and wanted to begin immediately. I explained that we could not do it during the Christmas holidays, and he agreed to our timetable: preliminary talks in Washington in mid-December, to be resumed early in the New Year with my participation33 and to continue uninterrupted until agreement was reached. The Washington talks got off to a bit of a rocky start with an aggressive public statement by Shara. Nevertheless, in the private talks, when Shara suggested that we should start where the talks had left off in 1996, with Rabins pocket commitment of the June 4 line provided Israels needs were met, Barak responded that while he had made no commitment on territory, we do not erase34 history. The two men then agreed that I could decide the order in which the issuesincluding borders, security, water, and peacewould be discussed. Barak wanted the negotiations to continue uninterrupted; that would require the Syrians to work through the end of Ramadan on January 7 and not go home to celebrate the traditional feast of Eid Al Fitr at the end of the fasting period. Shara agreed, and the two sides went home to prepare.
Although Barak had pushed hard for the early negotiations, he soon began to worry about the political consequences of giving up the Golan without having prepared the Israeli public for it. He wanted some cover: the resumption of the Lebanon track to be conducted by the Syrians in consultation35 with the Lebanese; the announcement by at least one Arab state of an upgrade of relations with Israel; clear security benefits from the United States; and a free-trade zone on the Golan. I agreed to support all these requests and took things a step further, calling Assad on December 19 and asking him to resume the Lebanese track at the same time as the Syrian talks and to help retrieve36 the remains37 of three Israelis still listed as missing in action from the Lebanon war almost twenty years earlier. Assad agreed to the second request and we sent a forensics team to Syria, but unfortunately the remains werent where the Israelis thought they would be. On the first issue, Assad hedged, saying the Lebanese talks should resume once some headway had been made on the Syrian track.
Shepherdstown is a rural community a little more than an hours drive from Washington; Barak had insisted on an isolated38 setting to minimize leaks, and the Syrians didnt want to go to Camp David or Wye River because other high-profile Middle East negotiations had occurred there. That was fine with me; the conference facilities in Shepherdstown were comfortable, and I could get there from the White House in about twenty minutes by helicopter.
It quickly became apparent that the two sides were not that far apart on the issues. Syria wanted all of the Golan back but was willing to leave the Israelis a small strip of land, 10 meters (33 feet) wide, along the border of the lake; Israel wanted a wider strip of land. Syria wanted Israel to withdraw within eighteen months; Barak wanted three years. Israel wanted to stay in the early-warning station; Syria wanted it manned by personnel from the UN or perhaps from the U.S. Israel wanted guarantees on the quality and quantity of water flowing from the Golan into the lake; Syria agreed as long as it got the same guarantees on its water flow from Turkey. Israel wanted full diplomatic relations as soon as withdrawal39 began; Syria wanted something less until the withdrawal was complete.
The Syrians came to Shepherdstown in a positive and flexible frame of mind, eager to make an agreement. By contrast, Barak, who had pushed hard for the talks, decided40, apparently41 on the basis of polling data, that he needed to slow-walk the process for a few days in order to convince the Israeli public that he was being a tough negotiator. He wanted me to use my good relationship with Shara and Assad to keep the Syrians happy while he said as little as possible during his self-imposed waiting period.
I was, to put it mildly, disappointed. If Barak had dealt with the Syrians before or if he had given us some advance notice, it might have been manageable. Perhaps, as a democratically elected leader, he had to pay more attention to public opinion than Assad did, but Assad had his own political problems, and had overcome his notorious aversion to high-level involvement with the Israelis because he trusted me and had believed Baraks assurances.
Barak had not been in politics long, and I thought he had gotten some very bad advice. In foreign affairs, polls are often useless; people hire leaders to win for them, and its the results that matter. Many of my most important foreign policy decisions had not been popular at first. If Barak made real peace with Syria, it would lift his standing43 in Israel and across the world, and increase the chances of success with the Palestinians. If he failed, a few days of good poll numbers would vanish in the wind. As hard as I tried, I couldnt change Baraks mind. He wanted me to help keep Shara on board while he waited, and to do it in the isolated setting of Shepherdstown, where there were few distractions44 from the business at hand.
Madeleine Albright and Dennis Ross tried to think of creative ways to at least clarify Baraks commitment to the Rabin pocket commitment, including opening a back channel between Madeleine and Butheina Shaban, the only woman in the Syrian delegation46. Butheina was an articulate, impressive woman who had always served as Assads interpreter when we met. She had been with Assad for years, and I was sure she was in Shepherdstown to guarantee the president an unvarnished version of what was happening.
On Friday, the fifth day, we presented a draft peace agreement with the two sides differences in brackets. The Syrians responded positively47 on Saturday night, and we began meetings on border and security issues. Again, the Syrians showed flexibility49 on both matters, saying they would accept an adjustment of the strip of land bordering Galilee to as much as 50 meters (164 feet), provided that Israel accepted the June 4 line as the basis of discussion. There was some practical validity to this; apparently the lake had shrunk in size in the last thirty years. I was encouraged, but it quickly became apparent that Barak still had not authorized50 anyone on his team to accept June 4, no matter what the Syrians offered.
On Sunday, at a lunch for Ehud and Nava Barak at Madeleine Albrights farm, Madeleine and Dennis made a last pitch to Barak. Syria had shown flexibility on what Israel wanted, providing its needs were met; Israel had not responded in kind. What would it take? Barak said he wanted to resume the Lebanese negotiations. And if not, he wanted to break for several days and come back.
Shara was in no mood to hear this. He said that Shepherdstown was a failure, that Barak was not sincere, and that he would have to say as much to President Assad. At the last dinner, I tried again to get Barak to say something positive that Shara could take back to Syria. He declined, instead telling me privately51 that I could call Assad after we left Shepherdstown and say he would accept the June 4 line once the Lebanese negotiations resumed or were about to start. That meant Shara would go home empty-handed from negotiations he had been led to believe would be decisive, so much so that the Syrians had been willing to stay through the end of Ramadan and the Eid.
To make matters worse, the latest bracketed text of our treaty leaked in the Israeli press, showing the concessions53 that Syria had offered without getting anything in return. Shara was subjected to intense criticism at home. It was understandably embarrassing to him, and to Assad. Even authoritarian54 governments are not immune to popular opinion and powerful interest groups.
When I called Assad with Baraks offer to affirm the Rabin commitment and demarcate the border on the basis of it as long as the Lebanese negotiations also started, he listened without comment. A few days later, Shara called Madeleine Albright and rejected Baraks offer, saying the Syrians would open negotiations on Lebanon only after the border demarcation was agreed upon. They had been burned once by being flexible and forthcoming, and they werent about to make the same mistake again.
For the time being we were stumped55, but I thought we should keep trying. Barak still seemed to want the Syrian peace, and it was true that the Israeli public had not been prepared for the compromises that peace required. It was also still in Syrias interest to make peace, and soon. Assad was in ill health and had to pave the way for his sons succession. Meanwhile, there was more than enough still to do on the Palestinian track. I asked Sandy, Madeleine, and Dennis to figure out what we should do next, and turned my attention to other things.
On January 10, after a White House celebration with Muslims marking the end of Ramadan, Hillary and I went to the U.S. Naval56 Academy Chapel57 in Annapolis, Maryland, for the funeral of former chief of naval operations Bud Zumwalt, who had become our friend through Renaissance58 Weekend. After I took office, Bud had worked with us to provide aid to the families of servicemen who, like his late son, had become ill as a result of their exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. He had also lobbied the Senate to ratify59 the Chemical Weapons Convention. His personal support to our family during and after the House impeachment proceedings60 was a gift of kindness we would never forget. As I was dressing61 for the funeral, one of my valets, Lito Bautista, a Filipino-American who had been in the navy for thirty years, said he was glad I was going to the service because Bud Zumwalt was the best we ever had. He was for us.
That night I flew to the Grand Canyon62, staying at the El Tovar Hotel in a room with a balcony right on the canyons63 edge. Nearly thirty years earlier, I had seen the sun set over the Grand Canyon; now I wanted to watch it rise, lighting64 the layers of differently colored rocks from the top down. The next morning, after a sunrise just as beautiful as I had hoped it would be, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and I designated three new national monuments and expanded a fourth in Arizona and California, including one million acres around the Grand Canyon and a stretch of thousands of small islands and exposed reefs along the California coast.
It was ninety-two years to the day since President Theodore Roosevelt had set aside the Grand Canyon itself as a national monument. Bruce Babbitt, Al Gore65, and I had done our best to be faithful to Roosevelts conservation ethic66 and to his admonition that we should always be taking what he called the long look ahead.
On the fifteenth I commemorated67 Martin Luther King Jr.s birth-day in my Saturday morning radio address by marking the economic and social progress of African-Americans and Hispanics in the last seven years and pointing out how far we had to go: Though minor-ity unemployment and poverty rates were at historically low levels, they were still far above the national average. We had also suffered a recent spate68 of hate crimes against victims because of their race or ethnicityJames Byrd, a black man dragged from the back of a pickup69 truck and killed by white racists in Texas; bullets fired at a Jewish school in Los Angeles; a Korean-American student, an African-American basketball coach, and a Filipino postal70 worker all killed because of their race.
A few months earlier, at one of Hillarys millennium71 evenings at the White House, Dr. Eric Lander, director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genome Research at MIT, and high-tech72 executive Vinton Cerf, who is known as the Father of the Internet, discussed how digital chip technology had enabled the human genome project to succeed. The thing I remembered most clearly about the evening was Landers statement that all human beings are more than 99.9 percent alike genetically73. Ever since he said that, I had thought of all the blood that had been shed, all the energy wasted, by people obsessed74 with keeping us divided over that one-tenth of a percent.
In the radio address, I again asked the Congress to pass the hate-crimes bill, and asked the Senate to confirm a distinguished75 Chinese-American lawyer, Bill Lann Lee, as the new assistant attorney general for civil rights. The Republican majority had been holding him up; they seemed to have an aversion to many of my non-Caucasian nominees76. My main guest that morning was Charlotte Fillmore, a one hundredyear-old former White House employee who decades earlier had had to enter the White House through a special door because of her race. This time we brought Charlotte through the front door to the Oval Office.
In the week leading up to the State of the Union address, I followed my usual custom of highlighting important initiatives that would be in the speech. This time I was incorporating two proposals Hillary and Al Gore were advocating on the campaign trail. I recommended allowing parents of children eligible77 for health insurance under the CHIP program to purchase insurance for themselves, a plan Al was promoting, and I supported making the first $10,000 of college tuition tax-deductible, an idea that Senator Chuck Schumer was pushing in Congress and Hillary was advocating in her campaign.
If all the parents and children who were income-eligibleabout fourteen millionbought into the CHIP program, it would take care of about a third of our uninsured population. If people fifty-five and over were allowed to buy into Medicare as I had recommended, the two programs together would cut the number of uninsured Americans in half. If the tuition tax credit was adopted, along with the college aid expansions I had already signed into law, we could rightly claim to have opened the doors of college to all Americans. The college-enrollment rate had already risen to 67 percent, almost 10 percent higher than when I took office.
In a speech to scientists at California Institute of Technology, I unveiled a proposed increase of nearly $3 billion in research, which included $1 billion for AIDS and other biomedical purposes and $500 million for nanotechnology, and major increases for basic science, space, and clean energy. On the twenty-fourth, Alexis Herman, Donna Shalala, and I asked Congress to help close the 25 percent pay gap between men and women by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act, giving us the funds to clear up the large backlog78 of employment discrimination cases at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and supporting the Labor79 Departments efforts to increase female employment in high-wage jobs in which women were underrepresented. For example, in most high-tech occupations, men outnumbered women by more than two to one.
On the day before the speech, I sat down with Jim Lehrer of PBSs NewsHour for the first time since our interview two years earlier, right after the storm over my deposition80 broke. After we went through the achievements of the administration over the previous seven years, Lehrer asked me if I was worried about what historians were going to write about me. The New York Times had just published an editorial saying historians were beginning to say I was a politician with great natural talent and some significant accomplishments81 who had missed the greatness that once seemed within his grasp.
He asked me about my reaction to the what might have been assessment82. I said that it seemed to me that the time most like our own was at the turn of the last century, when we were also moving into a new era of economic and social change, and were being drawn31 into the world beyond our shores more than ever before. Based on what had happened then, I thought the tests of my service would be: Did we manage the transition of America into the new economy and an era of globalization well or not? Did we make social progress and change the way we approached our problems to fit the times? Were we good stewards83 of the environment? And what were the forces we stood against? I told him I felt comfortable with the answers to those questions.
Moreover, I had read enough history to know that it is constantly being rewritten. While I was in office, two major biographies of Grant had been published that dramatically revised the conventional assessment of his presidency upward. That sort of thing was going on all the time. Besides, as I told Lehrer, I was more focused on what I could accomplish in my last year than on what the future might think of me.
Beyond the domestic agenda, I told Lehrer that I wanted to prepare our nation to deal with the biggest security challenges of the twenty-first century. The congressional Republicans first priority was building a national missile defense84 system, but I said the main threat was the likelihood that youll have terrorists and narco-traffickers and organized criminals cooperating with each other, with smaller and smaller and more difficult to detect weapons of mass destruction and powerful traditional weapons. So weve tried to lay in a framework for dealing with cyberterrorism, bioterrorism, chemical terrorism. . . . Now, this is not in the headlines, but . . . I think the enemies of the nation-state in this interconnected world are likely to be the biggest security threat.
I was thinking about terrorism a great deal then because of the nail-biting two months wed48 had leading up to the millennium celebration. The CIA, National Security Agency, FBI, and our entire counterterrorism group had worked hard to thwart85 several planned attacks in the United States and the Middle East. Now two submarines were in the northern Arabian Sea, ready to fire missiles at any point the CIA determined to be bin5 Ladens whereabouts. Dick Clarkes counterterrorism group and George Tenet were working hard to find him. I felt we were on top of the situation but still did not have either the offensive or defensive87 capabilities88 we needed to combat an enemy adept89 at finding the opportunities to attack innocent people that an increasingly open world offered.
Before the interview was over, Lehrer asked the question I knew was coming: if, two years ago, I had answered his question and other questions about my conduct differently right at the beginning, did I think that there might have been a different result and that I might not have been impeached90? I told him that I didnt know, but that I deeply regretted having misled him and the American people. I still dont have the answer to his question, given the hysterical91 atmosphere that had engulfed92 Washington at the time. As I told Lehrer, I had apologized and tried to make amends93 for my mistakes. That was all I could do.
Then Lehrer asked if I took satisfaction in knowing that if there was a conspiracy94 to run me out of office, it hadnt worked. I believe that was as close as any journalist ever came in my presence to admitting the existence of the conspiracy they all knew existed but could not bring themselves to acknowledge. I told Jim I had learned the hard way that life always humbles95 you if you give in to anger or take too much satisfaction in having defeated someone, or think that no matter how bad your own sins are, those of your adversaries96 are worse. I had a year to go; there was no time to be angry or satisfied.
My last State of the Union address was a joy to deliver. We had more than twenty million new jobs, the lowest unemployment rate and smallest welfare rolls in thirty years, the lowest crime rate in twenty-five years, the lowest poverty rate in twenty years, the smallest federal workforce97 in forty years, the first back-to-back surpluses in forty-two years, seven years of declining teen pregnancies98 and a 30 percent increase in adoptions99, and 150,000 young people who had served in AmeriCorps. Within a month we would have the longest economic expansion in American history, and by the end of the year we would have three consecutive100 surpluses for the first time in more than fifty years.
I was concerned that America would become complacent101 in our prosperity, so I asked our people not to take it for granted, but to take that long look ahead to the nation we could build in the twenty-first century. I offered more than sixty initiatives to meet an ambitious set of goals: every child would start school ready to learn and graduate ready to succeed; every family would be able to succeed at home and at work, and no child would be raised in poverty; the challenge of the baby boomers retirement102 would be met; all Americans would have access to quality, affordable103 health care; America would be the safest big country on earth and debt-free for the first time since 1835; prosperity would come to every community; climate change would be reversed; America would lead the world toward shared prosperity and security and to the far frontiers of science and technology; and we would at last become one nation, united in all our diversity.
I did my best to reach out to Republicans and Democrats104, recommending a mix of both tax cuts and spending programs to move toward the goals; greater support for faith-based efforts to fight poverty and drug abuse and help teen mothers; a tax break for charitable contributions by low- and moderate-income citizens who couldnt claim one now because they didnt itemize their deductions105; tax relief from the so-called marriage penalty and another expansion of the EITC; greater incentives106 to teach English and civics to new immigrants; and passage of the hate crimes bill and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I also thanked the Speaker for his support of the New Markets initiative.
For the last time, I introduced the people sitting with Hillary who represented what we were trying to accomplish: the father of one of the students killed at Columbine, who wanted Congress to close the gun show loophole; a Hispanic father who proudly paid child support and who would benefit from the tax-relief package for working families I had proposed; an air force captain who had rescued a downed pilot in Kosovo, to illustrate107 the importance of finishing our work in the Balkans; and my friend Hank Aaron, who had spent his years after baseball working to help poor children and bridge the racial divide.
I closed with an appeal for unity8, getting a laugh when I reminded Congress that even Republicans and Democrats were genetically 99.9 percent the same. I said, Modern science has confirmed what ancient faiths have always taught: the most important fact of life is our common humanity.
The speech was criticized by one congressman108 who said I sounded like Calvin Coolidge in wanting to make America debt-free, and by some conservatives who said I was spending too much money on education, health care, and the environment. Most citizens seemed to be reassured109 that I was going to work hard in my last year, interested in the new ideas I was advancing, and supportive of my efforts to keep them focused on the future.
The last time America seemed to be sailing on such smooth seas was in the early sixties, with the economy booming, civil rights laws promising110 a more just future, and Vietnam a distant blip on the screen. Within six years the economy was sagging111, there were race riots in the streets, John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. had been killed, and Vietnam had consumed America, driven President Johnson from office, and ushered112 in a new era of division in our politics. Good times are to be seized and built upon, not coasted through.
After a stop in Quincy, Illinois, to hit the high points of my agenda, I flew to Davos, Switzerland, to address the World Economic Forum113, an increasingly important annual gathering114 of international political and business leaders. I brought five cabinet members with me to discuss the popular uprising against globalization that we had witnessed in the streets of Seattle during the recent WTO meeting. The multinational115 corporations and their political supporters had largely been content to create a global economy that served their needs, believing that the growth resulting from trade would create wealth and jobs everywhere.
Trade in well-governed countries had helped lift many people out of poverty, but too many people in poor countries were left out: half the world still lived on less than $2 a day, a billion people lived on less than a dollar a day, and more than a billion people went to bed hungry every night. One in four people had no access to clean water. Some 130 million children never went to school at all, and 10 million children died every year of preventable diseases.
Even in wealthy countries, the constant churning of the economy was always dislocating some people, and the United States wasnt doing enough to get them back in the workforce at the same or higher pay. Finally, the global financial institutions had not been able to head off or mitigate116 crises in developing countries in a way that minimized damage to working people, and the WTO was perceived as being too captive to wealthy countries and multinational corporations.
In my first two years, when the Democrats were in the majority, I had gotten more money for training displaced workers and signed the NAFTA side agreements on the environment and labor standards. Afterward, the Republican Congress was less sympathetic to such efforts, especially those designed to reduce poverty and create new jobs in poor nations. Now it seemed to me that we had a chance to build a bipartisan consensus117 on at least three initiatives: the New Markets program, the trade bill for Africa and the Caribbean, and the Millennium Debt Relief effort.
The larger question was whether we could have a global econ-omy without global social and environmental policies and more open governance by the economic decision makers118, especially the WTO. I thought the anti-trade, anti-globalization forces were wrong in believ-ing that trade had increased poverty. In fact, trade had lifted more people out of poverty and pulled more nations out of isolation119. On the other hand, those who thought all we needed were unregulated flows of more than $1 trillion a day of capital and ever increasing trade were wrong, too.
I said globalization imposed on its beneficiaries the responsibility of sharing its gains and its burdens and empowering more people to participate in it. Essentially120, I advocated a Third Way approach to globalization: trade plus a concerted effort to give people and nations the tools and conditions to make the most of it. Finally, I argued that giving people hope through economic growth and social justice was essential to our ability to persuade the twenty-firstcentury world to walk away from the modern horrors of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and the old conflicts rooted in racial, religious, and tribal121 hatreds123.
When the speech was over, I couldnt know if Id succeeded in getting the thousand business leaders there to agree with me, but I felt that they had listened and at least were wrestling with the problems of our global interdependence and their own obligations to create a more unified124 world. What the movers and shakers of the world needed was a shared vision. When good people with energy act on a shared vision, most of the problems get worked out.
Back home, it was time for my last National Prayer Breakfast. Joe Lieberman, the events first Jewish speaker, gave a fine talk on the values common to all faiths. I discussed the practical implications of his remarks: if we are admonished125 not to turn away strangers, to treat others as we would like to be treated, and to love our neighbors as ourselves, who are our neighbors, and what does it mean to love them? If we were virtually the same genetically, and our world was so interdependent that I had a cousin in Arkansas who played chess twice a week on the Internet with a man from Australia, we obviously had to broaden our horizons in the years ahead.
The direction of those years, of course, would be shaped by the outcome of this years election. Al Gore and George W. Bush had both won handily in Iowa, as expected. Then the campaign moved on to New Hampshire, where voters in both parties primaries delight in upsetting expectations. Als campaign had gotten off to a rocky start, but when he moved his campaign headquarters to Nashville and began doing informal town hall meetings in New Hampshire, he really started connecting with voters, got better press coverage126, and pulled ahead of Senator Bradley. After the State of the Union, in which I featured some of his important accomplishments, he picked up a few more points in the bounce we always received from the speech. Then Bradley began to attack him harshly. When Al didnt respond, Bradley cut into his lead, but Al held on to win 5247 percent. After that, I knew he was home free for the nomination127. He was going to carry the South and California big, and I thought he would do well in the large industrial states, too, especially after the AFL-CIO endorsed128 him.
John McCain defeated George W. Bush in New Hampshire 4931 percent. It was a state tailor-made for McCain. They liked his independent streak129 and his support for campaign finance reform. The next big contest was in South Carolina, where McCain would be helped by his military background and the endorsements130 of two congressmen, but Bush had the backing of both the party establishment and the religious right.
On Sunday afternoon, February 6, Hillary, Chelsea, Dorothy, and I drove from Chappaqua to the State University of New Yorks campus in nearby Purchase for Hillarys formal announcement of her Senate candidacy. Senator Moynihan introduced her. He said that he had known Eleanor Roosevelt and that she would love you. It was a sincere compliment and a funny one, since Hillary had taken a lot of good-natured ribbing for saying she had had imaginary conversations with Mrs. Roosevelt.
Hillary gave a terrific speech, one she had written carefully and practiced hard; it displayed how much she had learned about the concerns of the different regions of the state and how clearly she understood the choices voters were facing. She also had to explain why she was running; show that she understood why New Yorkers might be wary131 of voting for a candidate, even one they liked, who had never lived in the state until a few months before; and say what she would do as a senator. There was some discussion about whether I should speak. New York was one of my best states; at the time my job approval was over 70 percent there and my personal approval was at 60 percent. But we decided I shouldnt talk. It was Hillarys day, and the voters wanted to hear from her.
For the rest of the month, while politics dominated the news, I was dealing with a wide variety of domestic and foreign policy issues. On the home front, I endorsed a bipartisan bill to provide Medicaid coverage to lower-income women for breast and cervical cancer treatment; made a deal with Senator Lott to bring five of my judicial132 nominees to the Senate floor for a vote in return for appointing the person he wanted, a rabid foe133 of campaign finance reform, to the Federal Election Commission; argued with the Republicans over the Patients Bill of Rightsthey said theyd pass it as long as no one could bring a law-suit to enforce it, and I argued that that would make it a bill of suggestions; dedicated134 the White House press room to James Brady, President Reagans courageous press secretary; announced a record increase in funds for Native American education and health care; supported a change in food stamp regulations to allow welfare recipients135 who went to work to own a used car without losing their food aid; received an award from the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) for my economic and social policies and for my major Hispanic appointments; and hosted the National Governors Association for the last time.
In foreign affairs, we dealt with a lot of headaches. On the seventh, Yasser Arafat suspended his peace talks with Israel. He was convinced that Israel was putting Palestinian issues on the back burner in favor of pursuing peace with Syria. There was some truth in it, and at the time, the Israeli public was more willing to make peace with the Palestinians, with all the difficulties that entailed136, than to give up the Golan Heights and put the Palestinian talks at risk. We spent the rest of the month trying to get things going again.
On the eleventh, the UK suspended home rule in Northern Ireland, despite the IRAs last-minute assurance of an act of arms decommissioning to General John de Chastelain, the Canadian who was overseeing the process. I had gotten George Mitchell involved again, and we had done our best to help Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair avoid this day. The fundamental problem, according to Gerry Adams, was that the IRA wanted to disarm137 because their people had voted for it, not because David Trimble and the Unionists had made decommissioning the price of their continued participation in the government. Of course, without decommissioning, the Protestants would lose faith in the process, and eventually Trimble would be replaced, a result Adams and Sinn Fein did not want. Trimble could be dour138 and pessimistic, but beneath his stern Scots-Irish front was a brave idealist who was also taking risks for peace. At any rate, the sequencing issue had delayed establishment of the government for more than a year; now we were back to no government. It was frustrating139, but I thought the impasse140 would be resolved because no one wanted to return to the bad old days.
On March 5, I commemorated the thirty-fifth anniversary of the voting rights march in Selma, Alabama, by walking across the Edmund Pettus Bridge as the civil rights demonstrators had on that Bloody141 Sunday, risking their lives to gain the right to vote for all Americans. Many of the veterans of the civil rights movement who had marched with or supported Martin Luther King Jr. marched arm in arm again that day, including Coretta Scott King, Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, Andrew Young, Joe Lowery, Julian Bond, Ethel Kennedy, and Harris Wofford.
In 1965, the Selma march galvanized the conscience of the nation. Five months later, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. Before the Voting Rights Act, there were only 300 black elected officials at any level, and just three African-American congressmen. In 2000, there were nearly 9,000 black elected officials and 39 members of the Congressional Black Caucus142.
In my remarks, I noted143 that Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he said that when black Americans win their struggle to become free, those who have held them down will themselves be free for the first time. After Selma, white and black southerners crossed the bridge to the New South, leaving hatred122 and isolation behind for new oppor-tunities and prosperity and political influence: Without Selma, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton would never have become President of the United States.
Now, as we crossed the bridge into the twenty-first century with the lowest unemployment and poverty rates and the highest home and business ownership rates among African-Americans ever recorded, I asked the audience to remember what was yet to be accomplished. As long as there were wide racial disparities in income, education, health, vulnerability to violence, and perceptions of fairness in the criminal justice system, as long as discrimination and hate crimes persisted, we have another bridge to cross.
I loved that day in Selma. Once again, I was swept back across the years to my boyhood longing144 for and belief in an America without a racial divide. Once again, I returned to the emotional core of my political life in saying farewell to the people who had done so much to nourish it: As long as Americans are willing to hold hands, we can walk with any wind, we can cross any bridge. Deep in my heart, I do believe, we shall overcome.
I spent most of the first half of the month campaigning for my gun safety measures: closing the gun show loophole, putting child trigger locks on guns, and requiring gun owners to have a photo-ID license145 showing that they had passed the Brady background check and had taken a gun safety course. America had been rocked by a series of tragic146 shooting deaths, one of them caused by a very young child firing a gun he had found in his apartment. The accidental gun death rate for children under fifteen in America was nine times higher than that of the twenty-five next largest economies combined.
Despite the crying need and rising public support for gun control, the NRA so far had kept anything from happening in Congress, though most gun manufacturers, to their credit, were now providing child trigger locks. On the gun show loophole, the NRA said, as it had in opposing the Brady bill, that it didnt object to instant background checks, but it didnt want anyone inconvenienced for the publics safety by having to endure a three-day waiting period. Already, 70 percent of the checks were completed in an hour, 90 percent in a day. A few took longer. If we didnt have a waiting period, people with bad records could buy their guns at closing time on Friday afternoon. The NRA was also adamantly147 against licensing148 gun owners, seeing it as the first step toward depriving them of the right to own weapons. It was a spurious argument; we had required drivers licenses149 for a long time, and no one had ever suggested banning automobile150 possession.
Still, I knew the NRA could scare a lot of people. I had grown up in the hunting culture in which its influence was greatest and had seen the devastating151 impact the NRA had had on the 94 congressional elections. But I had always felt most hunters and sports shooters were good citizens and would listen to a reasonable argument plainly stated. I knew I had to try, because I believed in what I was doing and because Al Gore had put himself squarely within the NRAs gunsights by endorsing152 the licensing idea even before I did.
On the twelfth, Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice42 president of the NRA, said that I needed a certain level of violence and was willing to accept a certain level of killing153 to further my political objectives, and his vice presidents, too. LaPierres position was that we should prosecute154 gun crimes more severely155 and punish adults who recklessly allow children access to guns. The next day, in Cleveland, I answered him, saying that I agreed with his proposals for punishment but that I thought his position that no preventive measures were needed was nonsense. The NRA was even against banning cop-killer bullets. It was they who were willing to accept a certain level of violence and killing to keep their membership up and their ideology156 pure. I said Id like to see LaPierre look into the eyes of the parents who had lost their children at Columbine, or in Springfield, Oregon, or Jonesboro, Arkansas, and say those things.
I didnt think I could beat the NRA in the House, but I was having a good time trying. I asked people how they would feel if the NRAs no prevention, all punishment strategy were applied157 to every aspect of our lives: getting rid of seat belts, air bags, and speed limits and adding five years to the sentences of reckless drivers who kill people; and getting rid of airport metal detectors158 and adding ten years to the sentence of anyone who blows up a plane.
On my previous trip to Cleveland, I had visited an elementary school where AmeriCorps volunteers were tutoring young children in reading. A six-year-old boy looked up at me and asked, Are you really the President? When I said that I was, he replied, But youre not dead yet! He knew only about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. I was running out of time, but with a high-class fight like this one on my hands, I knew the boy was right. I wasnt dead yet.
On March 17, I announced a breakthrough agreement between Smith Wesson, one of the largest gun manufacturers, and federal, state, and local governments. The company agreed to include locking devices with its guns, to develop a smart gun that could be fired only by the adult who owned it, to cut off gun dealers159 who sold a disproportionate number of guns used in crimes, to require its dealers not to sell at gun shows unless background checks were conducted, and to design new guns that did not accept large-capacity magazines. It was a brave thing for the company to do. I knew Smith Wesson would be subject to withering160 attacks from the NRA and from its competitors.
The presidential nominating process was over by the second week of March, as John McCain and Bill Bradley withdrew after Al Gore and George W. Bush won big victories in the sixteen Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses161. Bill Bradley had run a serious campaign, and in pressing Al early he had made him a better candidate, as Al scrapped162 his endorsement-laden86 approach for a grassroots effort in which he looked more like a relaxed but aggressive challenger. Bush had righted his campaign after losing in New Hampshire by winning in South Carolina, aided by a telephone campaign into conservative white households reminding them that Senator McCain had a black baby. McCain had adopted a child from Bangladesh, one of the many reasons I admired him.
Before the primaries were over, an ad hoc veterans group supporting Bush accused McCain of betraying his country in the five and a half years he was a POW in North Vietnam. In New York, the Bush people attacked McCain for opposing breast cancer research. Actually, he had voted against a defense bill with some breast cancer money in it to protest all the pork-barrel spending included in the bill; the senator had a sister with breast cancer and had always voted for the appropriations163 that contained well over 90 percent of the cancer research funds. Senator McCain didnt hit back hard at the Bush campaign or the right-wing extremists for smearing164 him until it was too late.
The developments on the international front in March were largely positive. Barak and Arafat agreed to restart their talks. On my last St. Patricks Day as President, Seamus Heaney read his poetry, we all sang Danny Boy, and it was clear that, although the government was still down in Northern Ireland, no one was prepared to let the peace process die. I spoke165 with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia about the possibility of OPEC increasing its production. A year earlier, the price of oil had dropped to $12 a barrel, too low to meet the basic needs of producing countries. Now it was jumping to between $31 and $34, too high to avoid adverse166 effects in the consuming nations. I wanted to see the price stabilize167 at between $20 and $22 a barrel and hoped OPEC could increase production enough to do that; otherwise, the United States could have significant economic problems.
On the eighteenth, I left for a week-long trip to India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. I was going to India to lay the foundation for what I had hoped would be a positive long-term relationship. We had wasted too much time since the end of the Cold War, when India had aligned168 itself with the Soviet Union principally as a counterweight to China. Bangladesh was the poorest country in South Asia, but a large one with some innovative169 economic programs and a friendly attitude toward the United States. Unlike Pakistan and India, Bangladesh was a non-nuclear nation that had ratified170 the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was more than could be said for the United States. My stop in Pakistan was the most controversial because of the recent military coup171 there, but I decided I had to go for several reasons: to encourage an early return to civilian172 rule and a lessening173 of tensions over Kashmir; to urge General Musharraf not to execute the deposed174 prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, who was on trial for his life; and to press Musharraf to cooperate with us on bin Laden and al Qaeda.
The Secret Service was strongly opposed to my going to Pakistan or Bangladesh because the CIA had intelligence that indicated al Qaeda wanted to attack me on one of those stops, either on the ground or during takeoffs or landings. I felt I had to go because of the adverse consequences to American interests of going only to India and because I didnt want to give in to a terrorist threat. So we took sensible precautions and proceeded. I believe it was the only request the Secret Service ever made that I refused.
Hillarys mother, Dorothy, and Chelsea were going with me to India. We flew there first, where I left them in the good hands of our ambassador, my old friend Dick Celeste, the former Ohio governor, and his wife, Jacqueline. Then I took a reduced group on two small planes into Bangladesh, where I met with the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina. Later, I was forced to make another concession52 to security. I had been scheduled to visit the village of Joypura with my friend Muhammad Yunus to observe some of Grameen Banks micro-credit projects. The Secret Service had determined that our party would be defenseless on the narrow roads or flying in a helicopter to the village, so we brought the villagers, including some schoolchildren, to the American embassy in Dacca, where they set up a classroom and some displays in the inner courtyard.
While I was in Bangladesh, thirty-five Sikhs were murdered in Kashmir by unknown killers175 intent on getting publicity176 tied to my visit. When I got back to Delhi, in my meeting with Prime Minister Vajpayee I expressed outrage177 and deep regret that terrorists had used my trip as an excuse to kill. I got on well with Vajpayee and hoped he would have an opportunity to reengage Pakistan before he left office. We didnt agree on the test ban treaty, but I already knew that, because Strobe Talbott had been working with Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh and others for months on nonproliferation issues. However, Vajpayee did join me in pledging to forgo178 future tests, and we agreed upon a set of positive principles that would govern our bilateral relationship, which had been cool for so long.
I also had a good visit with the leader of the opposition179 Congress Party, Sonia Gandhi. Her husband and mother-in-law, the grandson and daughter of Nehru, were both victims of political assassination180. Sonia, an Italian by birth, had bravely remained in public life.
On the fourth day of my trip, I had the opportunity to address the Indian parliament. The Parliament Building is a large circular structure in which the several hundred parliamentarians sit tightly bunched at row after row of narrow tables. I spoke of my respect for Indias democracy, diversity, and impressive strides in building a modern economy, frankly181 discussed our differences over nuclear issues, and urged them to reach a peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem. Somewhat to my surprise, I got a grand reception. They applauded by slapping the table, demonstrating that the Indians were as eager as I was for our long estrangement182 to end.
Chelsea, Dorothy, and I visited the Gandhi Memorial, where we were given copies of his autobiography183 and other writings, and we traveled to Agra, where the Taj Mahal, perhaps the worlds most beautiful structure, was threatened by severe air pollution. India was working hard to establish a pollution-free zone around the Taj, and Foreign Minister Singh and Madeleine Albright signed an agreement for Indo-U.S. cooperation on energy and the environment, with the United States providing $45 million in USAID funds and $200 million from the Export-Import Bank to develop clean energy in India. The Taj was breathtaking, and I hated to leave.
On the twenty-third, I visited Naila, a small village near Jaipur. After the village women in their brightly colored saris greeted me by surrounding me and showering me with thousands of flower petals184, I met with the elected officials who were working together across caste and gender185 lines that had traditionally divided Indians, and discussed the importance of micro-credit loans with the women of the local dairy cooperative.
The next day I went to the thriving high-tech city of Hyderabad as the guest of the states chief minister, Chandrababu Naidu, an articulate and very modern political leader. We visited the HITECH Center, where I was amazed to see the variety of companies that were growing like wildfire, and a hospital where, along with USAID administrator186 Brady Anderson, I announced a grant of $5 million to help it deal with AIDS and tuberculosis187. At the time, AIDS was just beginning to be recognized in India, and there was still a lot of denial. I hoped our modest grant would help increase public awareness188 and willingness to act before the AIDS problem in India reached Africas epidemic189 proportions. My last stop was in Mumbai (Bombay), where I met with business leaders, then had an interesting conversation with young leaders at a local restaurant. I left India feeling that our nations had begun a solid relationship, but wishing I had another week to absorb the countrys beauty and mystery.
On the twenty-fifth, I flew to Islamabad, the leg of the trip the Secret Service thought was most dangerous. I took as few people as possible, leaving most of our party behind, to fly on the larger plane to our refueling stop in Oman. Sandy Berger joked that he was a little older than I, and since we had been through so much in almost thirty years of friendship he might as well go along to Pakistan for the ride. Again we went in on two small planes, one with U.S. Air Force markings, the other, in which I was riding, painted plain white. The Pakistanis had cleared an area a mile wide around the runway to make certain that we couldnt be hit by a shoulder-fired missile. Nevertheless, landing was a bracing190 experience.
Our motorcade traveled an empty highway to the Presidential Palace for a meeting with General Musharraf and his cabinet and a televised address to the people of Pakistan. In the speech, I noted our long friendship through the Cold War and asked the Pakistani people to turn away from terror and nuclear weapons toward a dialogue with India on Kashmir, to embrace the test ban treaty, and to invest in education, health, and development rather than arms. I said I had come as a friend of Pakistan and the Muslim world who had stood against the slaughter191 of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, spoken to the Palestinian National Council in Gaza, marched with the mourners at the funerals of King Hussein and King Hassan, and celebrated the end of Ramadan at the White House with American Muslims. The point I tried to make is that our world was not divided by religious differences, but between those who chose to live with the pain of the past and those who chose the promise of the future.
In my meetings with Musharraf, I saw why he had emerged from the complex, often violent culture of Pakistani politics. He was clearly intelligent, strong, and sophisticated. If he chose to pursue a peaceful, progressive path, I thought he had a fair chance to succeed, but I told him I thought terrorism would eventually destroy Pakistan from within if he didnt move against it.
Musharraf said he didnt believe Sharif would be executed, but he was noncommittal on the other issues. I knew he was still trying to solidify192 his position and was in a tough spot. Sharif subsequently was released into exile in Jedda, Saudi Arabia. When Musharraf began serious cooperation with the United States in the war against terror after September 11, 2001, it remained a risky193 course for him. In 2003, he survived two assassination attempts within days of each other.
On the way home, after the stop in Oman to see Sultan Qaboos and get our delegation back on Air Force One, I flew to Geneva to meet with President Assad. Our team had been working to get Barak to make a specific proposal on Syria for me to present. I knew it wouldnt be a final offer, and the Syrians would know it, too, but I thought that if Israel finally responded with the same flexibility the Syrians had shown at Shepherdstown, we might still be able to make a deal. It was not to be.
When I met Assad, he was friendly as I gave him a blue tie with a red-line profile of a lion, the English meaning of his name. It was a small meeting: Assad was joined by Foreign Minister Shara and Butheina Shaban; Madeleine Albright and Dennis Ross accompanied me, with the National Security Councils Rob Malley serving as notetaker. After some pleasant small talk, I asked Dennis to spread out the maps I had studied carefully in preparing for our talks. Compared with his stated position at Shepherdstown, Barak was now willing to accept less land around the lake, though he still wanted a lot, 400 meters (1,312 feet); fewer people at the listening station; and a quicker withdrawal period. Assad didnt want me even to finish the presentation. He became agitated194 and, contradicting the Syrian position at Shepherdstown, said that he would never cede195 any of the land, that he wanted to be able to sit on the shore of the lake and put his feet in the water. We tried for two hours to get some traction45 with the Syrians, all to no avail. The Israeli rebuff in Shepherdstown and the leak of the working document in the Israeli press had embarrassed Assad and destroyed his fragile trust. And his health had deteriorated196 even more than I knew. Barak had made a respectable offer. If it had come at Shepherdstown, an agreement might have emerged. Now, Assads first priority was his sons succession, and he had obviously decided that a new round of negotiations, no matter how it came out, could put that at risk. In less than four years, I had seen the prospects197 of peace between Israel and Syria dashed three times: by terror in Israel and Peress defeat in 1996, by the Israeli rebuff of Syrian overtures198 at Shepherdstown, and by Assads preoccupation with his own mortality. After we parted in Geneva, I never saw Assad again.
That same day Vladimir Putin was elected president of Russia in the first round, with 52.5 percent of the vote. I called to congratulate him and hung up the phone thinking he was tough enough to hold Russia together and hoping he was wise enough to find an honorable way out of the Chechnya problem and committed enough to democracy to preserve it. He was soon off to a strong start, as the Duma ratified both START II and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Now even the Russian Duma was more progressive on arms control than the U.S. Senate.
In April, I continued to travel the country pushing my education, gun safety, and technology access issues from the State of the Union address; established another national monument, Grand Sequoia199, in California; vetoed the bill to put all Americas low-level nuclear waste in Nevada because I didnt think all the legitimate200 questions had been answered; signed the bill ending the earnings201 limitations for retirees who were collecting Social Security; visited the people of the Navajo Nation in Shiprock in northern New Mexico to highlight our efforts to use the Internet to bring educational, health, and economic opportunities to remote communities; and dedicated the simple but powerful memorial to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, 168 empty chairs in rows on a small knoll202 flanked by two large entryways and overlooking a large reflecting pool.
April also brought the final act in the long saga203 of little Elin Gonzlez. Several months earlier his mother had fled Cuba with him for the United States in a rickety boat. The boat capsized and she drowned after putting Elin in an inner tube to save his life. The boy was taken to Miami and put in the temporary custody204 of a great-uncle, who was willing to keep him. His father in Cuba wanted him back. The Cuban-American community made Elins case a crusade, saying that his mother had died trying to bring her son to freedom and it would be wrong to send him back to Castros dictatorship.
The governing law seemed clear. The Immigration and Naturalization Service was supposed to determine whether the boys father was a fit parent; if he was, Elin had to be returned to him. An INS team went to Cuba and discovered that though Elins parents were divorced, they had maintained a good relationship and had shared child-rearing duties. In fact, Elin had spent about half his time with his father, who lived closer to the boys school. The INS found that Juan Miguel Gonzlez was a fit parent.
Advocates for the American relatives took the case to court in an attempt to question the validity of the process in Cuba, thinking it might have been compromised by the presence of Castros people at the hearing. Some sought to apply the normal state-law standard in child custody cases: what is in the best interest of the child? The Congress got in on the act, with various bills being proposed to keep Elin in the United States. Meanwhile, the Cuban-American community was whipped into a frenzy by permanent demonstrations outside the house of Elins relatives and regular TV interviews with one of them, a h
收听单词发音 |
1
presidency
|
|
| n.总统(校长，总经理)的职位(任期) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
dependence
|
|
| n.依靠，依赖；信任，信赖；隶属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
bin
|
|
| n.箱柜；vt.放入箱内；[计算机] DOS文件名:二进制目标文件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
solidarity
|
|
| n.团结；休戚相关 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
unity
|
|
| n.团结，联合，统一；和睦，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
impeachment
|
|
| n.弹劾；控告；怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
afterward
|
|
| adv.后来；以后 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
winding
|
|
| n.绕，缠，绕组，线圈 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
stamina
|
|
| n.体力；精力；耐力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
courageous
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，有胆量的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
lighter
|
|
| n.打火机，点火器；驳船；v.用驳船运送；light的比较级 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
negotiations
|
|
| 协商( negotiation的名词复数 )； 谈判； 完成（难事）； 通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
faltered
|
|
| （嗓音）颤抖( falter的过去式和过去分词 )； 支吾其词； 蹒跚； 摇晃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
electorate
|
|
| n.全体选民；选区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
Soviet
|
|
| adj.苏联的，苏维埃的；n.苏维埃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
convene
|
|
| v.集合，召集，召唤，聚集，集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
regain
|
|
| vt.重新获得，收复，恢复 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
frailty
|
|
| n.脆弱；意志薄弱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
bilateral
|
|
| adj.双方的，两边的，两侧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
incentive
|
|
| n.刺激；动力；鼓励；诱因；动机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
withdrawn
|
|
| vt.收回；使退出；vi.撤退，退出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
uncertainties
|
|
| 无把握( uncertainty的名词复数 )； 不确定； 变化不定； 无把握、不确定的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
participation
|
|
| n.参与，参加，分享 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
erase
|
|
| v.擦掉；消除某事物的痕迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
consultation
|
|
| n.咨询；商量；商议；会议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
retrieve
|
|
| vt.重新得到，收回；挽回，补救；检索 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
isolated
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
withdrawal
|
|
| n.取回，提款；撤退，撤军；收回，撤销 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
distractions
|
|
| n.使人分心的事[人]( distraction的名词复数 )；娱乐，消遣；心烦意乱；精神错乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
traction
|
|
| n.牵引；附着摩擦力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
delegation
|
|
| n.代表团；派遣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
wed
|
|
| v.娶，嫁，与…结婚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
flexibility
|
|
| n.柔韧性，弹性，（光的）折射性，灵活性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
authorized
|
|
| a.委任的，许可的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
privately
|
|
| adv.以私人的身份，悄悄地，私下地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
concession
|
|
| n.让步，妥协；特许(权) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
concessions
|
|
| n.（尤指由政府或雇主给予的）特许权( concession的名词复数 )；承认；减价；（在某地的）特许经营权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
authoritarian
|
|
| n./adj.专制(的)，专制主义者，独裁主义者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
stumped
|
|
| 僵直地行走，跺步行走( stump的过去式和过去分词 )； 把（某人）难住； 使为难； （选举前）在某一地区作政治性巡回演说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
chapel
|
|
| n.小教堂，殡仪馆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
renaissance
|
|
| n.复活，复兴，文艺复兴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
ratify
|
|
| v.批准，认可，追认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
dressing
|
|
| n.(食物)调料；包扎伤口的用品，敷料 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
canyon
|
|
| n.峡谷，溪谷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
canyons
|
|
| n.峡谷( canyon的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
lighting
|
|
| n.照明，光线的明暗，舞台灯光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
gore
|
|
| n.凝血，血污；v.（动物）用角撞伤，用牙刺破；缝以补裆；顶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
ethic
|
|
| n.道德标准，行为准则 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
commemorated
|
|
| v.纪念，庆祝( commemorate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
spate
|
|
| n.泛滥，洪水，突然的一阵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
pickup
|
|
| n.拾起，获得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
postal
|
|
| adj.邮政的，邮局的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
millennium
|
|
| n.一千年，千禧年；太平盛世 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
high-tech
|
|
| adj.高科技的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
genetically
|
|
| adv.遗传上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
obsessed
|
|
| adj.心神不宁的,鬼迷心窍的,沉迷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
nominees
|
|
| n.被提名者，被任命者( nominee的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
eligible
|
|
| adj.有条件被选中的；(尤指婚姻等)合适(意)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
backlog
|
|
| n.积压未办之事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
deposition
|
|
| n.免职，罢官；作证；沉淀；沉淀物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
accomplishments
|
|
| n.造诣；完成( accomplishment的名词复数 )；技能；成绩；成就 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
assessment
|
|
| n.评价；评估；对财产的估价，被估定的金额 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
stewards
|
|
| （轮船、飞机等的）乘务员( steward的名词复数 )； （俱乐部、旅馆、工会等的）管理员； （大型活动的）组织者； （私人家中的）管家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
thwart
|
|
| v.阻挠，妨碍，反对；adj.横(断的) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
laden
|
|
| adj.装满了的；充满了的；负了重担的；苦恼的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
defensive
|
|
| adj.防御的；防卫的；防守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
capabilities
|
|
| n.能力( capability的名词复数 )；可能；容量；[复数]潜在能力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
adept
|
|
| adj.老练的，精通的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
impeached
|
|
| v.控告（某人）犯罪( impeach的过去式和过去分词 )；弹劾；对（某事物）怀疑；提出异议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
hysterical
|
|
| adj.情绪异常激动的，歇斯底里般的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
engulfed
|
|
| v.吞没，包住( engulf的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
amends
|
|
| n. 赔偿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
conspiracy
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋，共谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
humbles
|
|
| v.使谦恭( humble的第三人称单数 )；轻松打败（尤指强大的对手）；低声下气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
adversaries
|
|
| n.对手，敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
workforce
|
|
| n.劳动大军，劳动力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
pregnancies
|
|
| 怀孕，妊娠( pregnancy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
adoptions
|
|
| n.采用，收养( adoption的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
consecutive
|
|
| adj.连续的，联贯的，始终一贯的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
complacent
|
|
| adj.自满的；自鸣得意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
retirement
|
|
| n.退休，退职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
affordable
|
|
| adj.支付得起的，不太昂贵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
democrats
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
deductions
|
|
| 扣除( deduction的名词复数 )； 结论； 扣除的量； 推演 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
incentives
|
|
| 激励某人做某事的事物( incentive的名词复数 )； 刺激； 诱因； 动机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
illustrate
|
|
| v.举例说明，阐明；图解，加插图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
Congressman
|
|
| n.（美）国会议员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
reassured
|
|
| adj.使消除疑虑的；使放心的v.再保证，恢复信心( reassure的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
promising
|
|
| adj.有希望的，有前途的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
sagging
|
|
| 下垂[沉，陷]，松垂，垂度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
ushered
|
|
| v.引，领，陪同( usher的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
forum
|
|
| n.论坛，讨论会 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
gathering
|
|
| n.集会，聚会，聚集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
multinational
|
|
| adj.多国的，多种国籍的；n.多国籍公司，跨国公司 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
mitigate
|
|
| vt.（使）减轻，（使）缓和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
consensus
|
|
| n.(意见等的)一致，一致同意，共识 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
makers
|
|
| n.制造者，制造商（maker的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
isolation
|
|
| n.隔离，孤立，分解，分离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
tribal
|
|
| adj.部族的，种族的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
hatreds
|
|
| n.仇恨，憎恶( hatred的名词复数 )；厌恶的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
unified
|
|
| (unify 的过去式和过去分词)； 统一的； 统一标准的； 一元化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
admonished
|
|
| v.劝告( admonish的过去式和过去分词 )；训诫；（温和地）责备；轻责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
coverage
|
|
| n.报导，保险范围，保险额，范围，覆盖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
nomination
|
|
| n.提名，任命，提名权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
endorsed
|
|
| vt.& vi.endorse的过去式或过去分词形式v.赞同( endorse的过去式和过去分词 )；在（尤指支票的）背面签字；在（文件的）背面写评论；在广告上说本人使用并赞同某产品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
streak
|
|
| n.条理，斑纹，倾向，少许，痕迹；v.加条纹，变成条纹，奔驰，快速移动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
endorsements
|
|
| n.背书( endorsement的名词复数 )；（驾驶执照上的）违章记录；（公开的）赞同；（通常为名人在广告中对某一产品的）宣传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
wary
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，机警的，小心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
foe
|
|
| n.敌人，仇敌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
dedicated
|
|
| adj.一心一意的；献身的；热诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
recipients
|
|
| adj.接受的；受领的；容纳的；愿意接受的n.收件人；接受者；受领者；接受器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
entailed
|
|
| 使…成为必要( entail的过去式和过去分词 )； 需要； 限定继承； 使必需 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
disarm
|
|
| v.解除武装，回复平常的编制，缓和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
dour
|
|
| adj.冷酷的，严厉的；（岩石）嶙峋的；顽强不屈 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
frustrating
|
|
| adj.产生挫折的，使人沮丧的，令人泄气的v.使不成功( frustrate的现在分词 )；挫败；使受挫折；令人沮丧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
impasse
|
|
| n.僵局；死路 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
bloody
|
|
| adj.非常的的；流血的；残忍的；adv.很；vt.血染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
caucus
|
|
| n.秘密会议；干部会议；v.（参加）干部开会议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
longing
|
|
| n.（for）渴望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
tragic
|
|
| adj.悲剧的，悲剧性的，悲惨的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
adamantly
|
|
| adv.坚决地，坚定不移地，坚强不屈地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
licensing
|
|
| v.批准，许可，颁发执照( license的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
licenses
|
|
| n.执照( license的名词复数 )v.批准，许可，颁发执照( license的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
automobile
|
|
| n.汽车，机动车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
devastating
|
|
| adj.毁灭性的，令人震惊的，强有力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
endorsing
|
|
| v.赞同( endorse的现在分词 )；在（尤指支票的）背面签字；在（文件的）背面写评论；在广告上说本人使用并赞同某产品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
prosecute
|
|
| vt.告发；进行；vi.告发，起诉，作检察官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
ideology
|
|
| n.意识形态，(政治或社会的)思想意识 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
detectors
|
|
| 探测器( detector的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
dealers
|
|
| n.商人( dealer的名词复数 )；贩毒者；毒品贩子；发牌者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
withering
|
|
| 使人畏缩的，使人害羞的，使人难堪的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
caucuses
|
|
| n.（政党决定政策或推举竞选人的）核心成员( caucus的名词复数 )；决策干部；决策委员会；秘密会议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
scrapped
|
|
| 废弃(scrap的过去式与过去分词)； 打架 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
appropriations
|
|
| n.挪用（appropriation的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
smearing
|
|
| 污点，拖尾效应 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
adverse
|
|
| adj.不利的；有害的；敌对的，不友好的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
stabilize
|
|
| vt.（使）稳定，使稳固，使稳定平衡；vi.稳定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
aligned
|
|
| adj.对齐的，均衡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
innovative
|
|
| adj.革新的，新颖的，富有革新精神的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
ratified
|
|
| v.批准，签认（合约等）( ratify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
coup
|
|
| n.政变；突然而成功的行动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
civilian
|
|
| adj.平民的，民用的，民众的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
lessening
|
|
| 减轻，减少，变小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
deposed
|
|
| v.罢免( depose的过去式和过去分词 )；（在法庭上）宣誓作证 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
killers
|
|
| 凶手( killer的名词复数 )； 消灭…者； 致命物； 极难的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
publicity
|
|
| n.众所周知，闻名；宣传，广告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
forgo
|
|
| v.放弃，抛弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
assassination
|
|
| n.暗杀；暗杀事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
estrangement
|
|
| n.疏远，失和，不和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
autobiography
|
|
| n.自传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
petals
|
|
| n.花瓣( petal的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
gender
|
|
| n.（生理上的）性，（名词、代词等的）性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
administrator
|
|
| n.经营管理者，行政官员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
tuberculosis
|
|
| n.结核病，肺结核 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
awareness
|
|
| n.意识，觉悟，懂事，明智 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
epidemic
|
|
| n.流行病；盛行；adj.流行性的，流传极广的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
bracing
|
|
| adj.令人振奋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
slaughter
|
|
| n.屠杀，屠宰；vt.屠杀，宰杀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
solidify
|
|
| v.(使)凝固，(使)固化，(使)团结 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
risky
|
|
| adj.有风险的，冒险的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
agitated
|
|
| adj.被鼓动的，不安的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
cede
|
|
| v.割让，放弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
deteriorated
|
|
| 恶化，变坏( deteriorate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
prospects
|
|
| n.希望，前途(恒为复数) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
overtures
|
|
| n.主动的表示，提议；（向某人做出的）友好表示、姿态或提议( overture的名词复数 )；（歌剧、芭蕾舞、音乐剧等的）序曲，前奏曲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
sequoia
|
|
| n.红杉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
earnings
|
|
| n.工资收人；利润，利益，所得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
knoll
|
|
| n.小山，小丘 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
saga
|
|
| n.(尤指中世纪北欧海盗的)故事，英雄传奇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
custody
|
|
| n.监护，照看，羁押，拘留 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |