June 11, 1975
Page 18355
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Leon Billings and Sally Walker of my staff be given the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send to the desk a motion and ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) moves that the nomination of Stanley K. Hathaway to be Secretary of the Interior be recommitted to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs for further hearings on certain of the nominee's views and, in order to reconcile discrepancies between his statements before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and subsequent statements on these issues.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. McCLURE. Is a motion to recommit in order prior to the expiration of all time for general debate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is in order, although the vote could not occur until all time has expired.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, for the record, is a motion to recommit debatable, so that there will be no interruption in the flow of discussion here?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is debatable. The debate may continue.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Wyoming should know that if that were not the case, I would have cut myself off from the debate on this question.
Mr. McGEE. The Senator from Maine should know that was why I asked the question, because I was sitting here with bated breath waiting for his remarks.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator. Perhaps between the two of us we can throw some light on the issue.
Mr. President, it was not until yesterday that I began to dig thoroughly into the record of the hearings on this nomination. I did so with an open mind. It has been my custom, over the years since I have been a Member of the Senate, to give the President, any President, the benefit of the doubt on appointments to his Cabinet ; and I have tended to reserve my own doubts about the qualifications of candidates for particular positions in deference to the President's right, as I saw it, to appoint his own advisers.
In this case, on a reading of the record up to this point, I found it necessary to insist on my reservations and to seek to do so by making this motion to recommit. This is not a dilatory motion. Underlying it is a question that ought to be of concern to every Member of the Senate with respect to this nominee, and I can get to that point very quickly. It has to do with his position on the strip mining bill which the President just vetoed, which veto the House of Representatives failed to override yesterday.
Throughout his hearings, apparently, there was an attempt on the part of the committee, or certain members of the committee, to ascertain Governor Hathaway's views on that piece of legislation. He moved from considerable ambiguity at the beginning to what appeared to be a rather specific position at the end; and it is on that point that this motion rests.
I now turn to the record of the hearings on that point. During the hearing of May 6, Senator AB0UREZK put this question to Governor Hathaway:
What would you recommend to the President as far as strip mining bills are concerned with regard to signing or vetoing?
This was Governor Hathaway's reply:
My answer, Senator, is under the hypothetical situation you pose, a qualified yes, that I would recommend, subject to my not trying to place my judgment on the economic issues and the productivity issues. That would be a very awkward position for me to be in, to be attempting to advise the President of the United States in areas that I would need more information on, a lot more information than I have right now.
As to the general thrust of the reclamation standards, yes, I would hope it would become law.
I have emphasized what Governor Hathaway had to say. Senator ABOUREZK then put this question:
There is a possibility, under the terms you have stated, that you might recommend a veto under certain factual circumstances, if you got the right or wrong kind of advice, depending on how you looked at it?
Governor Hathaway responded with these words:
If economic and energy production questions cause me to take a different view on it, if I were in a position to make that recommendation, yes, I could.
Senator ABOUREZK. It is possible you could recommend a veto?
Governor HATHAWAY. I am being as honest with you as I can Senator. I am telling you what I think of the bill from a practical aspect of its administration and its purpose to protect the environment.
I do not see how I can be more forthright with you.
Senator ABOUREZK. Then your answer to my question is yes, it is possible you could recommend a veto?
Governor HATHAWAY. Yes.
Now, it is clear to me from this colloquy – I have not read all of the extensive record, and it may be that there is something in it that throws further light on the Governor's position, but in this discussion with Senator ABOUREZK, it was clear that he wanted to convey to the committee his support for the basic thrust of the strip mine legislation. He reserved judgment on the question of the economic and energy production issues, which he had not had the opportunity to study, and he clearly indicated that he would not advise the President with respect to vetoing this bill until he had sufficient information to form a judgment.
I repeat these words from his testimony:
... that I would need more information on, a lot more information than I have right now.
The clear implication was that he would not advise the President with respect to the veto unless he had such information on the economic and energy production questions. That is what I gather out of that colloquy, and that is an understandable position.
But then, the day after the committee reported his nomination to the floor, he discussed this question with reporters in Washington.
The news story reads as follows:
Immediately after the Senate Interior Committee approved his nomination as Interior Secretary, former Wyoming Gov. Hathaway said he supported President Ford's decision to veto the federal strip mine bill.
The question of whether Hathaway would recommend a veto of the bill was a point of considerable controversy during the committee's six days of confirmation hearings.
After repeated questioning by Sens. James Abourezk, D-S.D., and Floyd Haskell, D-Colo., Hathaway gave a "qualified yes" answer.
"I like the bill," Hathaway told the committee on May 6. "I think it is workable. Administratively, I think it gets at the thrust of the problem of protecting the environment and making it possible to use more coal for this country's needs at the same time."
However, Hathaway told reporters Wednesday that his support for the bill had been conditioned on learning more about possible economic impacts.
So then we come to the question, What more happened in the Governor's experience with respect to learning more about possible economic impacts?
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. STONE. Does the Senator suppose Governor Hathaway got briefed on the night the Committee reported his nomination favorably on the economics of the situation that night so that the next day he was then briefed? Is that when the Senator thinks that it happened?
Mr. MUSKIE. My impression is that it did not happen at all, and I refer to the same story, which incidentally happens to appear in the Denver Post for Thursday, May 22.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STRIP MINING SHIFT COULD HIT HATHAWAY
(By Leonard Larsen)
WASHINGTON.– Former Wyoming Gov. Stan Hathaway's prompt support for President Ford's veto of the strip-mining bill may fuel opposition in the Senate to his confirmation as Interior Secretary.
Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., leader of an attempt to force a floor fight on the Hathaway confirmation, said Thursday he was "curious" about Hathaway's present stand after Hathaway expressed support for the strip-mine control bill during his confirmation hearings in the Senate Interior Committee.
Hathaway was approved by the committee Wednesday on a 10-4 vote in which his confirmation was recommended to the full Senate.
ENDORSEMENT "QUALIFIED"
Immediately after that vote, in a brief television interview, Hathaway was asked about the Tuesday Ford veto of the stripmine bill and said, "I support the President's decision."
Hathaway reminded reporters that when he praised the objectives of the strip-mine control bill under questioning by the Senate Interior Committee he said his endorsement of the bill "was qualified" by the potential economic impacts of the bill.
Ford, in his veto message, told Congress he was returning the bill because, he said, it would create unemployment, hamper development of coal resources and boost energy costs.
Hathaway suggested during his confirmation hearings weeks ago that he would have to be informed on the "economics" of the strip mine control bill, even though he supported the objectives of the bill in land rehabilitation and protection of the environment.
NOT CONSULTED
Hart said one thing he was curious about was how Hathaway was convinced of the bad economic effects of the bill since – apparently – the former Wyoming governor hadn't been consulted by the White House before Ford's veto of the measure.
A Hathaway aide told The Denver Post that Hathaway had been in Wyoming since the weekend of May 10 and, the aide said, Hathaway, "to my knowledge" hadn't conferred with the White House on the strip mining control bill veto.
Asked whether Hathaway had received any information from the White House on the adverse economic impact of the strip-mine control bill, the aide said Thursday that "I know he hasn't been consulted on the economics of the thing. I know he hasn't been briefed."
The aide suggested that Hathaway's apparent change of mind on the strip-mine control bill – without having been informed of the White House views of its economic impact – was simply Hathaway's position of "expressing support for the President."
"I want to compare what Governor Hathaway is saying now to what he said during the committee hearings," Hart said.
Although Hathaway's quick support of the veto will be "helpful" in the confirmation fight, Hart said it was unlikely the Senate would turn down Hathaway.
Nevertheless, Hart said, he intended to carry the case to the Senate floor.
"The grounds for my objections to him are still the same," Hart said. "They have to do with his failure to understand the long-range economic and resource problems of this country."
The presidential veto of the strip-mine bill was due for a vote Wednesday in the House of Representatives, but supporters of the bill delayed that action until June 10 when it became obvious there wasn't enough House votes as of Wednesday for two-thirds majority to override the veto.
Mr. MUSKIE. This is what a Hathaway aide had to say on the question of whether the Governor indeed had made an effort or in some other way had been briefed on the economic impacts of the bill–
A Hathaway aide – fortunately not identified in the story –
Suggested that Hathaway's apparent change of mind on the strip mine control bill – without having been informed of the White House views on its economic impact – was simply Hathaway's position of "expressing support for the President."
Mr. HASKELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. HASKELL. I point out to the Senator another portion of that same story which backs up the Senator's viewpoint.
The aide says as follows, and I am quoting from this same article:
I know he hasn't been consulted on the economics of the thing. I know he hasn't been briefed.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has anticipated what I was about to say next.
Mr. HASKELL. I beg the Senator's pardon.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the interruption for the purpose of making the RECORD complete.
So at this point the indication is that the Governor had not briefed himself on the economic implications of the strip mine bill before he took his position on May 6 before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. He was not briefed from May 6 until May 21, apparently, when the Committee reported his nomination out to the Senate, and as of the time that he made his statement of support for the veto to reporters, an aide indicated he had not been consulted and had not been briefed on the economic issues.
It is a long time since I have been a lawyer, so I want to be careful about not cutting off any of the Governor's position on these questions.
But on the record the Governor advised the President to veto and strongly supported the veto, without having laid the basis for his own judgment on that question that he himself had said was essential before he would advise the President on the veto.
That is a question sufficiently related to the Governor's credibility before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and sufficiently related to his qualifications for the office which the Senate ought to take into consideration before acting on his nomination.
I think he ought to be given an opportunity to explain to the committee and to the Senate exactly what was the basis either for his change of mind or for his economic views with respect to the strip mine bill.
Unfortunately, there is in the record other evidence of the Governor's tendency to slip around direct and tough questions and to avoid the heart of the issues which the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs undertook to explore.
There was the now very well known document of Hathaway's record on the environment, which the Governor himself undertook to present to members of the committee and to Members of the Senate as documentation of his concern for environmental questions, as documentation of the balance in his own judgment as between environmental issues and others. That was questioned in the committee.
The 23 assertions that were made in that were challenged. He was given an opportunity to respond to those challenges. He could find criticism only with respect to four of the 23 challenges, and then those who had examined his record were given an opportunity to respond.
However one may read the record with respect to the original Hathaway environmental record document, or the criticism of that document, or the exchanges that took place in the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, he has to come out of it with the impression that the Governor was doing his best to put his best foot forward, even though that meant withholding relevant information, or misstating, maybe with politician's license over poetic license, or whatever one might like, his true position and his true record on the issues involved.
Standing by itself, I might still have given the President the benefit of the doubt and vote to support the nomination. But when added to that we have the matter that I presented to the Senate today, I simply could not find it possible to support his nomination, without having the discrepancy between his testimony of May 6 and his press statements of May 22 resolved, not by anyone in the Chamber of the Senate, but by the candidate himself.
Mr. GARY W. HART and Mr. STONE addressed the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE. I want to know whether he can face a direct challenge like this and meet it head-on with complete candor and directness.
There is much in the record to suggest doubt on that question.
Mr. GARY W. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. GARY W. HART. With the possible exception of the air quality legislation currently before this Congress, does the Senator doubt that the strip mine bill was one of the most important pieces of legislation before the Congress this year and that had been before Congress in the last session or two, relating to our land, our air and our water.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with the Senator.
Mr. GARY W. HART. Will the Senator also agree that the administration's case for vetoing and sustaining the veto of that bill rested on the economic implications of what that bill purportedly would bring about in terms of jobs, in terms of energy costs, and so forth?
Mr. MUSKIE. The President made that very clear.
Mr. GARY. W. HART. I think the Senator from Maine has in very cogent and logical terms laid out the problem here before this body how the nominee, who waffled all over the lot on the issue of whether the President should veto that very important legislation, within hours after his approval by the Interior Committee then stated very clearly that he was in favor of the veto and opposed to the legislation. He said this even though he had not received the kind of economic briefing on that issue which he said was necessary before he could take a position.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has stated the point very well.
Mr. GARY W. HART. Can that discrepancy be resolved in the Chamber or must that be resolved by the committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. It cannot be resolved in the Chamber to my satisfaction, so far as I know.
Mr. GARY W. HART. I thank the Senator.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. STONE. Is it not further the situation with regard to the strip mining bill that that bill has now been vetoed and that veto sustained, and is it not the case that if the Senate confirms this nominee the Senate has no notion of what that new Secretary of the Interior would recommend with regard to strip mining controls of any type? We would be flying blind.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator raises a very important additional point.
May I say that on May 6, the same day that Governor Hathaway testified with respect to his position on the strip mine bill, there followed a discussion with Senator ABOUREZK about what he would do if the bill were vetoed with respect to moving forward with coal leases, and again he left a record of ambivalence and uncertainty, and given his shift from May 6 to May 22 on the strip mine bill itself, legitimate questions arise as to what his policy will now be now that the bill has been vetoed and that he would have authority as Secretary of the Interior to move forward with coal leases.
He implied in his testimony that he might continue the moratorium until Congress acts. But now I suggest there is real question as to whether he meant that or whether he had some mental reservations that he has not yet expressed and will not express until his nomination has been confirmed.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. STONE. Is it not also the case that the question now left in the wake of the effected and sustained veto is what form of strip mining bill, if any, the administration would recommend, and have we any way of knowing that without further testimony from this nominee at the committee level?
Mr. MUSKIE. We have none whatsoever.
I wish to add this further point, and then I will yield: We are in a period of confrontation between environmental values, economic values, and energy values and how we resolve them in a balanced way to preserve the environment to meet our legitimate energy requirements, and to solve the problem of economy. That is a tough balance to achieve at best. Those whose bias leans in one of these three directions are going to be suspected by those whose biases lean in another.
So a man who is in the position of the Secretary of the Interior – in a position really, to impact on more than one of this triad of issues – is going to be credible and supportable only if he is perceived as a man who comes to that responsibility with balanced judgment, with a record for candor and directness, who is willing to talk to all sides, to achieve a balance, and to leave no one in doubt about where he stands.
It is extremely important, Mr. President, that this question be resolved. Only the candidate can resolve it, and the best way to do that is in the committee. I will promise him to give him the kind of objectivity I am urging for the Office of the Secretary of the Interior in evaluating whatever he has to say before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. He will have to be pretty good to get out of this ambiguity and out of this discrepancy, but I am all for giving him that chance.
If he is not willing to take that chance – he can indicate to his supporters in the Senate – if he is not willing to take that chance to explain his position in a way that will be credible to the Senate, he cannot have my vote.
Mr. President, I have very carefully considered the nomination of former Gov. Stanley Hathaway to be Secretary of the Interior. I am concerned that Mr. Hathaway's philosophy is inconsistent with what I believe are required of the administrator of the Nation's natural resources.
The Interior Committee has held extensive hearings on Mr. Hathaway's nomination. Those hearings brought out Mr. Hathaway's record as Governor of Wyoming, which, at best is distressing insofar as natural resource issues were concerned. However sincere his actions, Mr. Hathaway nonetheless reflects an "energy development at any cost-resource exploitation" philosophy.
The Secretary of Interior has broad discretion in his authority over how much Federal land is leased for mineral rights – including rights for coal, phosphate, oil, natural gas, oil shale, and other minerals – when that land is leased, who receives the lease, its location, and its royalty structure. Further, the Interior Secretary has considerable discretionary authority over wildlife preservation, endangered species, the National Park System, the National Seashores System, and other wildlife and conservation programs. His comments on behalf of these national resources are integral to the environmental impact review process.
The President has proposed to place a man with a record of lack of concern for environmental issues in a position which demands both sensitivity and a well-developed sense of balance for the environmental impact of resource development issues. The time has passed when the President's choice of people who will have broad administrative discretion is simply rubber stamped.
Mr. Hathaway's position with respect to the strip mining bill may be symptomatic of how he will function as Secretary of Interior. At the time of his nomination hearings, Mr. Hathaway expressed a general support for the bill and its structure. I will not repeat the history of his position. I have dealt with the record on this subject in detail.
I noted that immediately subsequent to committee approval of his nomination, Hathaway announced his support for President Ford's veto of the strip mining bill.
Mr. President, the Secretary of the Interior has responsibility for protection of the public land and the resources underneath these lands. To many, the Secretary of Interior manages a Western department and is interested in Western problems and Western resources. To me and to my constituents, the Secretary of the Interior is the manager of the Nation's parks, recreation resources, and most importantly, the submerged lands of the Outer Continental Shelf.
If, when, and how the resources of the Outer Continental Shelf are developed, are questions of overwhelmingly importance to the people of Maine and New England. Our fishery and tourist resources rely on the quality of the coastal marine environment. And our economy relies on oil.
No better example of the importance of a delicate balancing of public needs exists anywhere. And I find nothing in the former Governor of Wyoming's record to recommend that he has that sense of balance.
For these reasons, and for the purpose of permitting examination of Mr. Hathaway – seeing inconsistencies on the question of the strip mining bill – I have moved to recommit the nomination.
Mr. HASKELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for articulating a very important point, because candor, above all, is requisite in a Cabinet post.