CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
January 22, 1969
Page 1523
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr. President, for the past 8 years, under the guidance of the present Secretary, Stewart Udall, we have established an outstanding record in the field of conservation. Outstanding gains have been made in the areas of water and air pollution and preservation of our natural resources in the fields of minerals, oil, and timber.
In my own State of New Jersey a number of notable gains were made, including the preservation of the Great Swamp as a wilderness area and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
The latter constitutes a 40,000-acre national recreation area surrounding a 35,000-acre reservoir, all within an hour's drive of the northern New Jersey suburbs and an hour and a half from New York City. More than 30 million Americans live within 100 miles of this priceless recreation area.
President Nixon announced that he would nominate Gov. Walter J. Hickel as the new Secretary of the Interior. Immediately after this announcement the nominee's early statements concerning conservation were appalling indeed.
I am very thankful for the diligent, searching inquiry by both the subcommittee and full Committee on Interior. This investigation suggests that the nominee has now considerably broadened his views on conservation. I am, therefore, with some reluctance and apprehension, going to vote to confirm the nominee. I do this, however, with full confidence that the searchlight of national concern will continue to shine on Governor Hickel after he takes office, by both the Senate Interior Committee, Members of both bodies of Congress, and others interested in continuing the direction set during the past 8 years. One can only contemplate with the deepest apprehension the appointment of a Secretary of the Interior whose point of view might hark back that era when our lands and waters were looked upon as an economic resource to be exploited like any other.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the confirmation of the nomination of Governor Hickel to be Secretary of the Interior.
I take very seriously the constitutional role of the U.S. Senate in giving its advise and consent to the nomination of officers of the U.S. Government whose appointments are subject to Senate confirmation.
I am mindful of the fact that the President is entitled to fill Cabinet positions with individuals of his own choosing and who, in his opinion, are best qualified to perform the duties and responsibilities of their respective offices. I think we should give every benefit of the doubt to the President in this particular exercise of his office.
In the case of Governor Hickel however, and in the light of his public statements regarding the mission of the Interior Department, and the information which has been elicited in committee sessions with reference to Governor Hickel's background, I feel that confirmation of his appointment would be contrary to the public interest.
I have been hopeful that the President would withdraw the nomination and send to the Senate the name of another individual to be the custodian of our Nation's natural resources. Since he has not seen fit to do so, however, I am compelled to vote against the confirmation of the nomination of Governor Hickel.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the nomination of Gov. Walter J. Hickel to be Secretary of the Interior has stirred deep controversy across our country. At this point, however, all indications are that his nomination will be confirmed.
I lean heavily toward the point of view that a President ought to have considerable latitude in selecting his Cabinet, especially at the beginning of his administration. My inclination, therefore,
in the case of Governor Hickel has been to try to resolve my doubts in favor of confirmation.
But I am sorry to say that other considerations and concerns have given me pause.
There may well be other positions within President Nixon's administration for which I could vote confirmation for Governor Hickel. He is an able man who has been elected Governor of his State after a successful business career.
But the question I must answer is this: Can I approve his selection as Secretary of the Interior?
On two points I feel compelled to indicate my strong doubts about the wisdom of appointing him to this post.
CONSERVATION
The first point relates to the general question of conservation.
The Secretary of the Interior ought to be the No. 1 conservationist of the country -- or at least of the administration. There is no other place in the administration where this role can be effectively filled.
It is no answer to surround the Secretary or to shore him up with conservationists.
Whatever may have been the origins of the Department of the Interior, in recent years that Department has acquired enlarged authority, increased responsibility and the accepted leadership role in the field of conservation. That fact has profoundly influenced the growth of conservation efforts in the past few years. We cannot afford to lose the momentum created under the leadership of Secretary Udall.
As one who has been deeply involved in the development of our national air and water pollution control and abatement policies and programs, and as one who has deep concerns over the broader questions of environmental quality and its impact on our generation and those who follow, I have a strong interest in the President's choice for Secretary of the Interior.
Despite Governor Hickel's assurances in the hearings -- and I am sure he made them in good faith -- I am not certain that his orientation would insure conservation priorities in the discharge of his responsibilities as Secretary of the Interior.
That uncertainty leads me to question his selection as Secretary of the Interior.
NATIONAL FUELS POLICIES
The second point which raises doubts for me involves the question of our national fuels policies.
It is of vital importance to my State of Maine and to the New England region that we have objective and impartial development and administration of our national fuels policies which give due consideration to the legitimate and urgent needs of our fuel deficit area.
Since my arrival in the Senate, 10 years ago, one of the constant problems of our region has been the adverse impact of the restrictive oil import program initiated in 1957. We had labored long and hard to correct the imbalances in consumer prices and manufacturing costs caused by that program.
We had some success in alleviating part of the problem as it relates to residual fuel oil imports.
But there is widespread concern that our needs have not been given consideration in recent weeks with respect to the proposed construction of an oil refinery in a foreign trade zone at Machiasport, Maine. As a consequence, there is extreme sensitivity in Maine and New England about oil import policies in the new administration and their effect on our region.
Again, despite Governor Hickel's assurances, his orientation and experience raise doubts as to whether he can be objective and impartial in making decisions on policies, programs, and projects which in the past he has regarded as injurious to the interests of his own State.
In short, my vote this afternoon is an expression of my doubts on the wisdom of Governor Hickel's appointment as Secretary of the Interior.
I would have preferred to see someone chosen to be Secretary of the Interior who had a different and more favorable orientation on these two matters.
I shall vote against confirmation of Governor Hickel with extreme regret and without partisan motivation.
I have said many times since the election that I will do all I can to cooperate with President. Nixon and to give every proper consideration to the problem he faces in assuming leadership of our country. That cooperation and consideration includes the programs and proposals he submits to the Congress.
I meant that and I mean it now. But, on this appointment, I have such strong doubts that I feel I must express those doubts by voting against confirmation of Governor Hickel.
In all fairness to Governor Hickel and his statements on the two points I have raised, I ask unanimous consent that there be included in the RECORD at this point that portion of the transcript of the hearing which covers my colloquy with him.
There being no objection, the portion of the transcript was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE COLLOQUY BETWEEN SENATOR MUSKIE AND SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR-DESIGNATE HICKEL
Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Senator Jackson.
Governor, I have just two lines of questioning which I hope are not too extensive. The first has to do with a project in my own State, the proposed foreign trade zone in Maine, the Machiasport project. The second has to do with the water quality standards program.
With respect to the first, in your statement you indicated that you recognized a difference between your obligations as Governor of Alaska and your obligations as Secretary of the Interior with respect to the oil import program. I am sure you do. Yet I wonder if you really focus upon what this could mean in terms of the convictions you have developed over the years as a result of your activities in a State like Alaska, your interest in the development of its oil resources, and your responsibilities as Governor.
In the present administration we who come from fuel deficit areas were assured at the very beginning that all authority with respect to oil imports would be delegated to the Secretary of the Interior in order to insure the impartial and objective implementation of those policies. But in these last days of the administration we are finding that when the crunch comes, when the real crunch comes, that somehow the oil industry's interests prevail over those of our fuel deficit area of New England.
So I think you ought to consider the fact that there is no way for you, as I understand it, to divorce yourself of your responsibilities with respect to the oil import program as there appear to be for the White House. Since you cannot divorce yourself of these responsibilities, we are most sensitive in my area to the question whether when the crunch comes, you are going to be influenced by the points of view you have developed up to this point or by your desire to be objective.
Now, in your statement you said that you recognize that there might have to be some increase in imports with respect to some areas of the country. That statement does not reflect the sense of urgency we in New England feel about this problem.
Senator Brooke has prepared a letter to be signed, and I understand it will be signed, by all 12 New England Senators addressed to the chairman of this committee with reference to this hearing, and I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the full text of the letter be made a part of the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the full text of the letter will be included at this point.
(The letter referred to follows:)
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
January 15, 1969.
Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,
Chairman, Senate Interior Committee,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: We are taking the liberty of writing to you in connection with the hearings on the nomination of the Honorable Walter Hickel to be Secretary of the Department of Interior. As you may know, the people and representatives of New England have grown increasingly vocal in their protests over the inequitable effects of the oil import quota program administered by that department.
The adverse impact of that program in the states of our regions is clear and grave. The prices of fuel oil, on which private heating and industrial power are heavily dependent in New England, have been abnormally high. Furthermore, oil supplies have been unnecessarily tight and thus the region has risked emergencies in the course of long and bitter winters.
These conditions are a direct result of the controlled and noncompetitive market in petroleum products, a market with its production base located elsewhere in the country and with little sensitivity to the legitimate needs of our region. During the years the 0il Import Control Program has been in operation, refining capacity on the East Coast as a whole has declined by almost 250,000 barrels per day, while New England has been left without a single refinery. Our states have been effectively cut off from dependable and economical sources of oil and made captive to a program that seriously jeopardizes the well-being of our people and the vitality of our economy.
We consider this unjust and intolerable, and the members of the New England delegation are committed to using every power at their command to remedy this situation.
Because the Secretary-designate, if confirmed, will have direct responsibility for the Oil Import Control Program, we consider it proper and, indeed, essential to raise this critical problem with him during these hearings. We believe that the people of New England are entitled to definite assurances from him, first, that he recognizes the urgency of this problem and, second, that he will take action to cope with it.
This action could take a variety of forms. The most immediate and promising course would be to act favorably upon so-called "Proposal A" of the Department of Interior's proposed regulations on the allocation of oil imports for Foreign Trade Zones, if the present Secretary for some reason fails to do so. An application to create such a zone at Machiasport, Maine, is now pending before the Foreign Trade Zones Board and "Proposal A", as published in the Federal Register of December 11, 1968, would make possible a reasonable volume of processing and importation of petroleum products through this zone. Not only would this project provide invaluable relief to New England fuel consumers, but it would be a major contributor to one of the country's most depressed counties.
In addition to the Machiasport proposal, other changes in the Oil Import Control Program should be contemplated, including the possibility of a general increase in imports of foreign oil, a redistribution of quotas to promote competition, and other measures to encourage wider dispersal of refining capacity and supply sources as a means of meeting the demand for fuel in New England and other energy-poor areas. In fact we believe that the justification and operation of the entire Oil Import Control Program should be reviewed.
Because these issues are of central importance to all New England and, in our opinion, to all America, we hope that the Secretary-designate will be prepared to express his support for some action along these lines.
We will be grateful for your cooperation in presenting this statement to the nominee at a suitable point in the hearings, and will be anxious to have his comments on the problems it discusses.
Sincerely yours,
Edward W. Brooke, George Aiken. Norris Cotton, Thomas Dodd, Edward Kennedy, Thomas McIntyre, Edmund Muskie, John Pastore, Claiborne Pell, Winston Prouty, Abraham Ribicoff, Margaret Chase Smith.
Senator MUSKIE. Now, in part that letter says things like this:
"The adverse impact of that program"that is, the oil import program -- "in the States of our region is clear and grave. The prices of fuel oil on which private heating and industrial power are heavily dependent in New England have been abnormally high. Furthermore, oil supplies have been unnecessarily tight. Thus, the region has risked emergencies in the course of long and bitter winters," a point of view I am sure you understand. Unfortunately we haven't found oil in New England as you have in Alaska.
The letter continues:
"These conditions are a direct result of the controlled and non-competitive markets in petroleum products, a market with its production base located elsewhere in the country and with little sensitivity to the legitimate needs of our region."
Then, the letter says this:
"Because the Secretary-designate, if confirmed, will have direct responsibility for the oil import control program, we consider it proper and indeed essential to raise the critical problem with him during these hearings. We believe that the people of New England are entitled to definite assurances from him, first that he recognizes the urgency of this problem, and second, that he will take action to cope with it."
Now, what the letter requests, in posing those two questions, is something more than the general review and objectivity which you promised. This letter inquires, first, as to whether or not you recognize the problem as being urgent from the point of view of New England, and second, whether you recognize that it calls for action beyond the point of review. And I ask only for an honest answer to both of those questions and then I have a third one on this subject, and then I shall go on to water quality standards.
Governor HICKEL. Senator, I think you covered it well and I think that if I ever thought it was urgent, I can see now that it is more urgent and I can understand it. [Laughter.]
I think in all fairness I have got to say that there isn't any doubt, Senator, that I will take the broad national picture other than that as you indicated I might have as Governor of Alaska. And as far as it being urgent, if you have an urgent situation, then it requires urgent and prompt action.
I will promise you this, that when confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I would think at this point one of the first things that we would have to do would be to sit down collectively with your fellow Senators and with this committee and with the executives as such and try to find a solution that is more than apparently there, and I think with that kind of an approach and with that openmindedness that I will give it, it is about as far as I could go in saying what would I do to solve the problem. But I assure you this. We will do something. At this point I couldn't say specifically what. I think it would be wrong of me to do it. It would show that I made a decision without having all of the facts and knowledge before me.
But I assure you that those facts and that knowledge will be gained as soon as possible upon my assuming the position.
Senator MUSKIE. Well, now, let's be perfectly frank. This is the time to be frank. We in New England have been pressing for action before January 20. The oil industry has been pressing for delay before January 20 because it is rather widely said that the situation after January 20 will be less favorable to us and more favorable to the oil industry.
Now, obviously this isn't something I have coined to ask you to embarrass you this morning.
Clearly, the efforts of New England and of the oil industry focused on January 20 and your accession to the secretaryship of the Interior.
This is going to put you in a terrible spot after January 20 and indeed, you may be in the position of having to lean over backward to favor New England against the oil industry in order to avoid any accusation of bias.
Now, what is your reaction to that? [ Laughter. ]
Governor HICKEL. Senator, would you allow me to just be a little humorous at the moment and say I wonder if I couldn't toss this back to the White House like they tossed it to the Interior. I know I can't and I don't want to be facetious.
I would say this, that I would try to recognize the problem of a certain region and still keep the national picture in mind. Now, I won't have to go into the background. You and I both know why the oil import program was brought about and how it became mandatory and the reason it was was for national defense and other things. I think that is still important. I think we should maintain that.
Now, whether we raise the quota, lower the quota, we don't want to lower the quota but if we raise the quota, let us try to do it in such a way that we can generally subscribe to and follow the pattern and the intent of why we had the oil import program, and we might be able to stretch our imagination far enough and come up with a collective idea, and I mean collective, and maybe the whole committee would agree that there you have a special problem. But until I had all those facts and talked to all those people, I don't see how in the world I can go beyond this because my full intention would be to try and solve the problem that some section of America had and yet be fair with the Nation as a whole.
Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask you a more specific question and then I will turn to my other subject.
If the impact of the oil import quota is to force higher fuel prices upon New England, higher than those paid by any other region, would you consider that an equitable result?
Governor HICKEL. I think that would be one of the things that we would have to take into mind and although I realize that there are two elements here, above all, the consumer is one of the most important because the reason that we are in production in anything is for the consumer, and so that would be one of the strong elements of making a decision. But beyond that, Senator, I don't think that I could be expected to say anything any stronger or more affirmatively or more negatively than what I have said.
Senator MUSKIE. I would not expect you to make decisions here this morning but let me point out something rather unusual about this committee. You will notice, if you look at this committee, that Senator Nelson of Wisconsin is the only Senator on it from any State east of the Mississippi.
Now, this isn't the fault of anybody except perhaps those of us who are Senators from east of the Mississippi who haven't aspired to be seated on this committee, but I think it is true that this committee has developed concerns beyond that of a western committee. I think the Department of Interior has. But it has been in relatively recent years. When you consult with Senators about the oil import policy, I hope you would not limit yourself to consultation only with Senators on this committee. I hope you will also give consideration to those of us from the oil consuming States of the country.
We feel deeply about this in New England. Whenever we try to develop the fuel policy that would be equitable to us, we meet roadblocks. Even when we try to develop our own hydroelectric resource we find other areas of the country unsympathetic for only one reason, to protect their coal resources or their oil resources against the competition of the resources that God gave to us.
Up to now we have tried to solve this problem by being nice fellows. We are no longer so disposed to being nice fellows and I think the new Secretary-designate ought to recognize that that is our attitude at this point and probably will continue to be after January 20.
So we are going to be receptive to the kind of objectivity we have been seeking all these years and that you have promised us this morning.
Now I would like to go on to the question of water quality standards.
You have said from time to time that you applaud the decision of the Congress not to set a uniform national standard of water quality but to try to approach the problem through the initiative of the States.
We took this step deliberately, but when we took it, we recognized that we were opening the door to the foot draggers, to those who feel they have an investment in the status quo, and to those who have less than a feeling of urgency about the need to improve the quality of our waters.
We took this step for two reasons. One, because the problem is so big that we could come to grips with it more effectively if the States would develop viable and progressive policies in this field, and secondly, because obviously water use decisions can be better made by those who are directly involved.
But if this program doesn't work, the pressure for national quality standards is going to escalate.
Now, in the development of these State standards under the leadership of the Secretary of the Interior, there has been a lot of foot dragging, and we are not over the problem yet. I think he is close to it if he hasn't achieved the approval of water quality standards for all States. But, on that score I would like to ask this question first.
Is it your conception that the standards already adopted and approved are the ultimate or do you regard them as the beginning in an escalating and ever-tightening program of water quality improvement?
Governor HICKEL. Senator, you put it well. It is exactly as you state it. It is a start. It has to do, as I talked about, with the guidelines that we must seek to look ahead in 1980 or the year 2000. I think it is a start. I think it is possibly the best way to start, try to have the relationship with the States and the Federal Government. Obviously if there are foot draggers and if certain areas degrade the water more than it is obvious that they should, at some point down the road if this upgrading doesn't come about, you really don't have any other choice than to so-call step in and have new guidelines, and that would again be up to Congress and whatever Congress might do, in any respect, to upgrade or do what they might have to do to bring about what you say, then I would enforce it with everything within my power because that is exactly how I feel.
But it is a start. It is not the ultimate. But it is in my opinion the best wisdom that Congress could do at the moment to start along the right-in the right direction.
Senator MUSKIE. Now, I have debated with myself on whether to ask you this next question but I think that the best course is to ask it.
When you visited me in my office, and I think when you visited other Senators, you were accompanied by Mr. James Watt, who is secretary of the natural resources committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. I should have thought to have asked you this question in my office but frankly, as you know, we were both pressed for time and I didn't think of it.
But the Chamber of Commerce of the United States has been in the forefront of those who have undertaken to challenge the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to require secondary treatment and to adopt what has been referred to as the non-degradation rule.
I think first that I would like for you to comment on the connection, if any, between the fact that Mr. Watt has accompanied you and your views on these two issues, and secondly, to solicit your views on these two issues. Might I say this just to make perfectly clear my own position: I have read the brief that was solicited or that was obtained by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States challenging this authority of the Secretary of the Interior. We have defeated it so far as this administration is concerned, but if the point of view of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States on these two points were to be adopted, in my judgment it would destroy the water quality standards program as it is now established in law. The amusing thing about the brief is it speaks of congressional intent to support its position, but I wrote the law. It is rather an amusing observation on briefs. Would you comment on that?
Governor HICKEL. Senator, I met Mr. Watt in a group of maybe five or six different people that I was interviewing. It was in going over just a casual resume that I found out that he had been an administrative assistant to the Senator from Wyoming, Simpson -- I think that is right. I had never met the man before. As far as his being with the chamber of commerce, it didn't even ring a bell one way or the other. And we were short of staff and the distance -- it is a long way between here and home, and so he said that he would -- he could help guide me around. I told him I wanted to go and meet the various Senators. And it was his just natural willingness to help and probably a simple rapport. [Laughter.]
I think he is a capable person. I think he is a most capable person. I think he is knowledgeable in that
Senator MUSKIE. That may be the disturbing thing about it, you know. [Laughter]
Governor HICKEL. Well, I'm sorry he didn't come out of your office because I would have taken him, too, because he is quite a guy.
That is the background, my background and knowledge, the reason I had him, and if I could be influenced at levels of this nature, I don't think I would be sitting here today, And as far as any water standards being degraded, I would be the first one to fight that. And I think as you remember my thoughts and some of the things that I did as Governor, when I told you I thought I was the only Governor of any sovereign State that seized a ship in coastal waters and took it to Federal court and won. It gives you a general idea of how I think.
I am not one that wants to even think about going backward. I am too progressive by nature. I think my record will show. So have no fear.
Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask you a specific question. I know that you and the Secretary of the Interior have correspondence with respect to the non-degradation policy as it applies to Alaska.
Do you at this point have any question or any doubt about the validity of the non-degradation policy in its present form?
Governor HICKEL. I have none that I know of at this point and I can see no hindrance whatsoever. The actions of Alaska were entirely different in the fact that it covers such a broad area. As I mentioned before, it covers an area nearly as big as the United States in distance, and so some areas do have a different problem than other areas.
It is a very difficult thing. So we look at this case by case. But we have never allowed any, if I might say, pollution such as that mentioned in some newspaper articles where we dumped several thousand tons or millions of gallons of ammonia in a river. I just want to assure you, Senator, that that is not true because that plant isn't even in operation, and the reason for them spending considerable thousands, literally about $200,000 more in money, is to assure the State, and they are doing this through research at the University of Washington and the University of Alaska, to assure the State that what they do meets the standards. We requested that and they have agreed to spend the money. I might say not one–
Senator ALLOTT. Will the Senator from Maine yield for one question?
Senator MUSKIE. Yes; I would be happy to.
Senator ALLOTT. Along this same general line, I think it is important that it be cleared up. In the Washington Post of January 8, Governor, an article appeared, written by Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, in which they talked about water standards, and I quote:
"Specifically the Collier Carbon & Chemical Company was still dumping three and a half tons of ammonia into Cook inlet every day from its north Kenai plant and there were no tangible plans for stopping this."
Now, is this the plant that you have referred to that has never operated?
Governor HICKEL. That is right, Senator. The plant has never been in operation.
Senator ALLOTT. What would you say as to the veracity of this statement? [Laughter.]
Governor HICKEL. It is a sin to tell a lie. [Laughter.]
Senator ALLOW. Thank you, Senator Muskie.
Senator MUSKIE. Just one final question to wrap up the water quality issue as far as I am concerned.
You have no plans. then, to change the non-degradation policy or the secondary treatment policy or any of the other guidelines which have been used by the Department of the Interior in the development of water quality standards.
Governor HICKEL. That is right, Senator.
Senator MUSKIE. Now, returning to the Machiasport project, I have one question. The Secretary has had under consideration since the early part of December a change in our oil import policy with respect to the licensing of imports to free trade zones.
I have no idea whether he is likely to make a decision on this between now and January 20. If he does, what are the prospects for the life of that policy after you become Secretary?
Governor HICKEL. Senator, I would have to see what decision he would make, first, and how he would approach it before I could even intelligently or from a "guesstimate" standpoint know what I would do. I would appreciate, Senator -- I don't know how to answer it because I don't know what he is going to do.
Senator MUSKIE. Well, the question I guess isn't entirely fair because I had assumed that you read the regulations issued in the early part of December. They offered two alternatives, alternative A and alternative B, to govern this problem. If you haven't read it, obviously you can't react to my question.
Governor HICKEL. I haven't read it, Senator. I am sorry.
Senator MUSKIE. I will limit myself this morning to simply calling your attention to those regulations. If you have a chance, to read them, and I know you are going to be very busy between now and January 20, I would appreciate it if you would communicate your reactions to me. But I understand that you may be too busy.
Governor HICKEL. I will do that, Senator. I will try to do that.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Muskie.
Mr. MUSKIE. It will be noted that Governor Hickel attempted to give me assurances with respect to both points. My questions relate not to his intentions or his good faith, but to the fact that his experience over the years and his orientation will exert a strong influence on him as he attempts to fulfill his responsibilities in the number one conservation and natural resource policy post in our National Government. That fact makes it difficult for him to overcome my doubts on those two points.
I hope that in registering my doubts in this way I will impress on Governor Hickel and the administration the widespread concern on conservation policy which exists throughout the country and the deep concern on national fuels policy which exist in New England and Maine.
If those concerns do make an impression and Governor Hickel is able to overcome my doubts, then my vote will have achieved its constructive purpose.