CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

January 22, 1969

Page 1503

Mr. ALLOTT. . . . We have here a Governor of a State, one of the two newest States in the Union who has been, I would say, a fine and great Governor of the State of Alaska.

I propose to talk about some of those things later but eventually, I say this to Senators who believe they are opposed to this: "No matter what criteria you write into the report, no matter whether you agree with the case, as to what you will do with this whole thing, no matter what kind of trust you say a man shall set up for all the property he has, eventually you come down to one thing." That is the integrity of the individual. So I asked myself: Do I have faith in the integrity of this man? I know that his decision on Machiasport is not going to be easy. As the Senator from Louisiana has said, there are probably as many Senators in this body who are opposed to it as there are Senators who are for it.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLOTT. I yield.

Mr. MUSKIE. That is exactly the reason why we need a man who will not only be objective and fair, but a man who, once he makes up his mind, if his decision is favorable to New England's case on the merits, has the courage to really fight for that decision.

I know the crunch that comes when the oil industry has made up its mind to achieve an objective.

We had understood that this administration -- I am talking about the immediately past administration, the Johnson administration -- was delegating its authority to the Secretary of the Interior in order to eliminate any suspicion that oil import decisions were biased. We learned, in the closing weeks of that administration, when the crunch came, that the oil industry had the political power and force to get its way.

We do not have that kind of crunch in New England. At least, we could not demonstrate it in those closing weeks, and we were bowled over.

I questioned the nominee. I did not expect him to make a decision on this case in response to my questions, but I was trying to get some feel out of his background, his instincts, his reaction to this problem, which would give me some clue as to whether or not, first, he could make such an objective decision, and, second, whether, if that decision ran counter to the interests of the oil industry, he could support or sustain it.

I did not get any clue. I did not expect it. I hoped I might, but I did not. I think the Governor referred to the New England problem as something needing solution. Well, that does not give much of a clue. He suggested we needed a solution that was not apparent, but we think the solution is pretty apparent. But if he rejects the one that is being considered as one he cannot see, that may be prejudging the matter, perhaps.

He suggested, in response to another question, that we have to use our imaginations to find a solution. Well, we have for some 8 years, and apparently the solution we came up with does not seem imaginative to him on this kind of exposure.

In all fairness, there is not much clue in his answers. Probably we could not expect them.

Probably we could not expect a decision.

So I am left with this decision. Here is a problem of a critical nature to my region.

Mr. ALLOTT. I understand that.

Mr. MUSKIE. We had understood for 8 years, or perhaps 5 years, that we were going to get objective treatment and that if decisions on the merits leaned our way, we could expect that they would be decided on their merits.

January 20 came and went. Frankly, it was not my view that that is the kind of treatment we got.

So now I am asking, as a Senator from New England, whether or not, once more, we are going to take the situation on faith, when there is some evidence in the nominee's record that he is oriented in a direction -- I am not speaking of orientation in the sense of prejudice; I have no evidence of prejudice -- that makes it impossible for him to look at this problem from our point of view; one who, having looked at the problem and having reached a decision, can fight for a decision that runs against his background, his orientation, and the particular pressure of the oil industry. I think that is a lot to ask of a man.

If we confirm him and he is required to go through this problem, can we know what his reaction will be? All I am asking is, do we, for a number of years, in addition to those we have had in the past, just act on faith, against our doubts, to put this decision in the hands of this man?

I have very serious doubts, as I have indicated. I have a statement to make later. I am not impugning the nominee's motives. I am not a member of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The committee has made no suggestion that the man is dishonest. I have no quarrel with the fight he has made for the interests he has represented or for the interests he has had in the past. I agree with the Senator that we cannot take a man out of a vacuum and put him in office as Secretary of the Interior, but we cannot divorce him from the past.

The Secretary of the Interior, in my judgment, ought to be the No. 1 conservationist for the country, because there is no other place to put him in the Federal Establishment. When I say "No. 1," I mean a man who does not neglect all other considerations, but a man who puts conservation priorities first. Whether a man does, it seems to me, is decided before he is appointed Secretary of the Interior. If he has not had this kind of priority in his mind in the past, he cannot generate it in a few days of hearings before the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee or in a few days of debate on the Senate floor. It is not against a man if he does not have those priorities. Not all Americans are going to be conservationists first, but I say the Secretary of the Interior ought to put conservation first.

Again, we have to take some chances and resolve some doubts. I agree with the Senator's statement that, on any person, whether a Democrat or a Republican is named Secretary of the Interior, we are not going to come up with complete agreement; but I have some doubts about this nomination, and I will make a statement later.

I want the Senate to understand that, as far as I know, Governor Hickel is a man of honesty. As far as I know, he is a man of courage, within the circumstances under which he has had to operate. But when he comes up against the oil industry, he is going to find himself in a circumstance he has never met before. The only way to meet it the way we have is to become a Senator from New England.

Mr. ALLOTT. I thank the Senator, and I sympathize with his position.

I see that Secretary Udall gave Hawaii an oil zone. I expect my feelings would be expressed even a little more strongly if I were a Senator from his portion of the country, particularly his State, if I had read this article, which I ask unanimous consent to be placed in the RECORD, and had not received consideration for my own.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

UDALL ACTS TO GIVE HAWAII OIL ZONE

(By Spencer Rich)

Secretary of Interior Stewart L. Udall, the central figure in one of the last great feuds of the Johnson Administration, signed two new oil import quota regulations before leaving office. The action paves the way for foreign oil to enter Hawaii through a trade zone arrangement.

The regulations, which apply to Hawaii and the West Coast, set out rules under which the Hawaiian Independent Refinery, Inc., can build a 30,000-barrel-a-day refinery to bring foreign oil into a foreign trade subzone for which application is pending and then refine and sell it in Hawaii.

The new regulations, announced yesterday were seen by some as a possible precedent for the politically controversial Machiasport, Maine, foreign trade zone refinery favored by New England Congressman as a means to reduce fuel costs in New England.

Normally, material imported into an area designated as a "foreign trade zone" or subzone can only be sold abroad. The oil industry fears that if low-cost foreign oil, refined in foreign trade zones, is allowed to be sold in the United States -- even after obtaining an oil import quota -- the oil quota system that helps prop up domestic oil prices will eventually be breached.

The Hawaii-West Coast regulations signed by Udall are the first ever setting forth the conditions for import of oil into a foreign trade zone. But before they can be applied, Hawaii must obtain from the Foreign Trade Zones Board (consisting of the Secretaries of Commerce, Treasury, and Defense) approval of its application for the foreign trade subzone in which the refinery would be built.

It was not clear what role Udall's oil order played in the still-sputtering controversy over former President Johnson's failure last weekend to set aside three huge areas of the public lands in Alaska and Arizona as parts of the National Park System. The President, apparently at the last minute, decided not to set aside as "national monuments" 4.1million and 2.2-million-acre areas in Alaska and a 911,700-acre area in Arizona. He can do this under the 1908 Antiquities Act.

The Interior Department had already announced on Saturday afternoon that the President was acting on these three areas, and Secretary Udall later that day, in a reportedly stormy phone conversation with Mr. Johnson in lieu of a planned face-to-face meeting which didn't come off, offered his resignation.

One source said yesterday that it may have been irritation with Udall's proposed oil order that helped decide President Johnson against the parkland action, which Udall had been pushing for months.

But the Johnson camp countered that Udall may actually have "slipped over" the oil import orders Monday because of anger with the President following their weekend dispute over the park land.

Yesterday Johnson partisans took the offensive, saying it was not presidential pique that led to Mr. Johnson's decision -- as some in the Udall camp were implying -- but Secretary Udall's failure to pave the way politically on Capitol Hill for the three new monuments.

One source suggested that Udall, in his enthusiasm for creating the new monuments from existing federally owned lands, had underestimated opposition on Capitol Hill. He said the President was furious when at the last moment he learned of the depth of opposition.

Udall, it was understood, discussed the proposed land orders with Senate Interior Chairman Henry Jackson (D-Wash.) and senior House Interior Republican John Saylor (R-Pa.) three to four weeks ago and obtained their backing.

But he did not brief or inform some of the other interested members until late last week, on Thursday or Friday, when he met with the Arizona, Alaska and Utah delegations and informed House Interior Chairman Wayne Aspinall (D-Colo.) of the plans.

But that apparently was too late to be consulting Congressional leaders. It badly ruffled the feathers of some senior Senators and House members. It left Aspinall -- in his own words – "dumbfounded, chagrined, completely upset." He has long believed that only Congress should create National Park System units.

Sen. Alan Bible (D-Nev.), the secondranking Democrat on the Senate Interior Committee, which has jurisdiction over parks, was not advised of the proposals, for example, until late last week. Nor were Arizona's two Senators, Barry Goldwater and Paul Fannin, both Republicans. Fannin said he opposed the land actions in his State.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) also opposed the two massive monuments in his State. A source close to Mr. Johnson said the President was worried about putting aside areas of such huge size by executive action when it was Congress that would have to appropriate the money. He feared such action might make Congress angry and prejudice the future of the park system.

"The C&O Canal in Washington was the last area put aside through executive action (on Jan. 18, 1961) under the Antiquities Act," this source said. "And it has never received a penny in funds for development in the eight years since because of Aspinall's disagreement with the use of the executive power to set aside the area.

"So in the end, the President eliminated the most controversial, huge areas and approved only four smaller areas" (totaling 384,500 acres in Arizona. Utah and Alaska).

The Udall camp conceded that the President never actually made a final commitment on the three larger areas although it was believed he favored them. But it also denied that Udall flubbed the Congressional liaison, pointing out that "the way LBJ works, you don't brief people until it's set."

"The President was well aware there would be strong Congressional opposition," said one source denying that Udall had misled him on this matter.

Udall himself said yesterday that the major arguments for the two Alaska areas set aside was that this might be the last opportunity to preserve these land areas in their natural state. Alaska, he said, is soon to take over for state use 103 million acres of Federal lands, perhaps including some of the best wild areas.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLOTT. In just a moment.

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has put his finger on a troublesome problem. In the Hawaii case, I hope what was done was the establishment of a precedent that will be helpful to us. I suspect Secretary Udall would have done more for us than he did were it not for the pressures that were at work prior to January 20.

The Senator will recall my questions to the Secretary-designate. I said this to him, and, of course, he could not answer it:

New England has been pressing for a decision before January 20, but the oil industry has been pressing to delay until after January 20, and each side can see that January 20 has been the focal point, because each side assumes, Governor Hickel, that after that date you will be disposed to be favorable to the oil industry and unfavorable to New England.

There is no question but that these two movements had taken place prior to January 20 for this reason. It puts Governor Hickel in an awfully hot spot.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Let me say something at that point. Does the Senator know of any man in the United States, who would be conceivably qualified for this job, taking into consideration all of the things involved, who is not going to be on the hot spot when this matter comes along for consideration?

The Secretary of the Interior is not going to be the only man who takes part in this decision. The State Department and other agencies, the Office of Emergency Planning, the Commerce Department, and others, will be involved in the matter. But does the Senator know of any man who could go in there and not be on the hotspot, when the matter comes up for decision?

Mr. MUSKIE. The Cabinet level is a hot spot in every Department. That is not the point I make.

This is a special hot spot, and a special hot spot especially for a man whose orientation creates additional problems for him.

Mr. ALLOTT. What orientation is the Senator talking about? Does the Senator know -- and I want the Senator from Alaska to correct me if I am in error on this -- that while Governor Hickel was Governor of Alaska, he raised the oil tax in Alaska from 1 cent to 4 cents? Is that not correct?

Mr. STEVENS. One percent to 4 percent.

Mr. ALLOTT. One percent to 4 percent. As a matter of fact, contrary to what has been said in the papers–

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is raising another question.

Mr. ALLOTT. He has received a lot of heat for raising these taxes.

Mr. MUSKIE. Oh, I have no doubt of that. But he is not oriented to New England's problems; he is oriented to a State which has discovered large oil reserves, whose development requires cooperation at the Capitol and cooperation with the existing oil industry in this country.

When they come into a situation, they do so on their terms, and they know how to protect themselves. That is their business. It is not the business of the Secretary of the Interior.

If I had been in his shoes as Governor of Alaska, and if I were nominated to be Secretary of the Interior, I think I would have some doubts as to my ability to be objective in this position, and to be sympathetic and understanding to the problems of a region like New England. Let me state it in that sense.

What I am talking about has nothing to do with the personal integrity of Governor Hickel. It has to do with whether or not, in the light of his experience as Governor of Alaska, the need, as Governor of Alaska, to develop its resources, to explore its oil reserves, to develop them, and to invite into the State the capital and the companies and the management necessary to do that, he can then move into a spot like the office of Secretary of the Interior with all good faith, honesty, and intention, and serve fairly and objectively, when the crunch comes, the interests of a region like New England.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLOTT. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Iowa.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has expressed his disappointment that Governor Hickel was not able to give a "clue" to his position on the New England problem.

Mr. MUSKIE. I did not express disappointment, may I say, I said I had hoped that he might, and understood when he could not.

Mr. MILLER. Certainly the Senator, having expressed the hope, implied his disappointment that no clue was given. That is the point.

The response to that point, I think, is this: The Senator should have been disappointed if he had given a clue, because then he would have removed the objectivity with which he is supposed to tackle this problem.

Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield, I said I did not expect him to make a response to my question.

Mr. MILLER. The Senator from Maine said that, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the expression of concern by the Senator from Maine that he had not indicated a "clue," not a response or decision.

Mr. MUSKIE. I asked the question hoping I might get one, not expecting one, and I did not get one. If the Senator wishes to embroider my answer with such words as "disappointment" and the rest of it, that is his privilege, but that is not what I said, and I like to be somewhat precise when I comment upon things as closely related to the integrity and honesty of a man as we are in discussing Governor Hickel. I do not like my impressions of a man, in those circumstances, embroidered with someone else's interpretation of what I said.

I said very precisely that I asked the question hoping I might get a clue, not looking for anything specific, not expecting one, and I did not get one. I leave my observation at that point.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLOTT. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. MILLER. I ask the Senator from Maine, then, if he did not expect a clue, why has he brought this matter upon the Senate floor in the first place?

Mr. MUSKIE. Would not the Senator expect me to act in the interests of my State, at a hearing in which the nomination of the Secretary of the Interior is considered?

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.

Mr. MILLER. The Senator has yielded to me, I believe.

Mr. ALLOTT. I have the floor.

Mr. MILLER. Will the Senator permit me to continue briefly?

Mr. ALLOTT. Yes, the Senator may continue briefly.

Mr. MILLER. I think it is very important to put this matter in perspective. I share the sympathy of the Senator from Colorado with the problem of the Senator from Maine, but my point is that instead of furnishing a clue, whether it is expected or not, I think that the Secretary-designate was most prudent in not furnishing a clue. If he had, then his objectivity would have been damaged.

So I, for one, think it is a good thing that he did not do so.

I should like to mention just one other point.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield so that I might comment on that just once more?

Mr. ALLOTT. Let me yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would like to add one word, if I may.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Colorado yielded to me.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I will yield the floor to the Senator from Maine in a moment.

Mr. MUSKIE. No; I have had enough.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, there has been a lot of expression of interest over this January 20 date. What has happened to this interest in the last 8 years? Why was there not an equal amount of interest 3 years ago, or 4 years ago? Since I have been in the Senate, and I am sure since everyone has been here, there has existed this perennial oil import problem of New England.

Surely a solution will be required, but why must it focus on January 20?

I should think that Governor Hickel would realize that there has been a Democratic administration for 8 years which has not come up with a solution; and common prudence would indicate that he should not risk his objectivity by indicating a clue on how he would propose to solve it. He recognizes that a solution is required, and I think that is as far as he could go.

I thank the Senator from Colorado.