[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 131 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11084-S11087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE CLINTON RECORD

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to share a few moments 
with my colleagues on actions taken by the Clinton administration this 
week. We have had discussions concerning the appropriateness of the 
President withdrawing about 1.8 million acres in Utah under the 
authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906.
  I ask the Chair and my colleagues, is this really the creation of a 
national

[[Page S11085]]

monument, or is it simply a reelection ploy? The administration 
justifies the action based on some historical withdrawals of Federal 
land, referring back to Teddy Roosevelt's time. I would ask for a quick 
reflection on the oversight of the various land management agencies and 
laws as they have been developed over the years--the Bureau of Land 
Management, the National Park Service, the management of our refuge 
systems--and suggest that there is, indeed, enough oversight in the 
process to ensure extremes are not taken on the utilization of public 
land.
  I think a number of people are asking, in the wake of President 
Clinton's surprise announcement Wednesday of the 1.8-million-acre 
national monument withdrawal in southern Utah, just what the President 
and the administration have in mind. One looked at some of the media 
and saw the expanse of the Grand Canyon with the President standing--I 
should say sitting--at a desk overlooking the brink of the Grand Canyon 
with the Vice President standing behind him.
  This withdrawal was a last-minute withdrawal, it was a secretive 
withdrawal, it was an unconventional withdrawal. The way they attempted 
to create the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, could cause 
one to quickly conclude the administration was primarily concerned 
about the photo opportunities and climbing the staircase to reelection. 
The details of this withdrawal were left undecided. The potential harms 
of this hasty decision, in my opinion, suggest the President is in an 
irresponsible rush to get on the evening news.
  I have a question for the White House and the President. It is 
specific. It is: Why was the public not involved in this decision? We 
have NEPA, FLPMA, and Federal land use planning laws, all of which 
stress public involvement in species protection. The administration 
insists on strict adherence to these laws. Adherence to these laws 
occurs, of course, before the action, not after it.
  These laws were followed in the California desert wilderness debate. 
It was extensive. We all participated in it. It did not turn out the 
way we all wanted it, but a democratic process occurred, hearings were 
held, there was give and take, the State of California was consulted, 
individuals in this body took a stand, they voted on it and they were 
held accountable for their vote. Why was that procedure not followed in 
the State of Utah?
  My constituency, of course, is the State of Alaska. We have already 
experienced a little activity in the 1970's, under President Carter, 
with the Antiquities Act, whereby some 56 million acres or thereabouts 
were withdrawn.
  Wilderness in Alaska is very sacred to us. The mistake that was made 
in our State, when we were establishing land patterns, is we did not do 
a resource inventory. We almost did. We could have met the wilderness 
demands and we could have identified those areas of high resource 
potential, but, unfortunately, the technology and the commitment were 
not quite there at that time. So we are in constant conflict with 
Federal refuge areas and the potential development and access through 
these areas. So we do have a long memory with regard to the application 
of the Antiquities Act and other laws.
  But, in this case, the President, in this day--not in 1970 or 1975 or 
1978, but in 1996--did not run the idea by the State of Utah, its 
elected officials, its legislature, its Governor. He did it over the 
objection of the Utah delegation. They could have helped prevent some 
pitfalls that are going to occur.

  Instead, they read about it in the newspapers. You can also assume 
the administration simply has written off Utah, their electoral votes--
six, I think--written them off. They have probably written off Alaska.
  I know my colleague from Idaho is introducing legislation to ensure, 
as far as Idaho is concerned, the application of the Antiquities Act. 
Wyoming, after the experience with the Antiquities Act, had a provision 
in the final settlement that suggested that the Antiquities Act would 
be no longer applicable in that State. In our State of Alaska, we have 
a no more clause. The Federal Government simply cannot take land under 
a land grab and designate it without a congressional process occurring.
  The President included 200,000 acres of school trust lands in Utah 
which potentially could produce $1.5 billion to fund Utah's public 
schools. Why did the President not choose to work with Governor Leavitt 
about that and the other $6.6 billion the State potentially would lose? 
Does the President realize that locking up 62 billion tons of 
recoverable low-sulfur coal will lead to greater air pollution when 
utilities are forced to burn dirtier coal?
  Like it or not, coal provides about half the Nation's electricity.
  It is my understanding this particular coal deposit would be about 40 
acres out of the 1.8 million acres--a pretty small footprint.
  Does the President know that 350,000 acres of what he is declaring a 
monument will be opened up to buses, tourists, and other development, 
and that it would have been protected as wilderness under the plan 
written by the State of Utah and Utahns? In fact, Utah had indicated a 
willingness for further review of its roadless areas for wilderness 
status.
  What about the huge liability the Federal Government assumes in 
wiping out private property claims in this area? Where are we going to 
find the money to reimburse Americans whose property is, obviously, 
taken at the cost of billions of dollars? What about the people who are 
going to lose their jobs? The President says the monument will add 
jobs.
  Let's look at Utah. The people of Kanab, UT, an area surrounded by 
five national parks, had their families' incomes drop from $23,000 in 
1990 to $18,000 in 1995. That does not sound like a lot of new jobs to 
me.
  These questions bring a bigger question to mind: Why was our 
President in such a hurry? We went through this process. We were going 
to take it up again in the 105th Congress. He was pressed by the Utah 
delegation not to make the designation until such questions were 
answered. The administration and the President offered vague promises 
saying details would be worked out later. Even Utah's Democratic 
Congressmen begged him not to ignore the details. I have even heard 
that Dick Morris made the recommendation. Maybe he is still calling the 
shots for the President and the administration.
  So let me be blunt. Our President appears to be a young man in a 
hurry. It is becoming more and more clear he doesn't seem to be very 
concerned about where he is going, as long as it leads to his 
reelection. As a result, we have great TV news stories, a lot of action 
and some major policy blunders, in my opinion. We seem to be seeing the 
influence from the extreme national environmental groups who have the 
ear of the administration and the President, and these groups have put 
fear into the American people; fear that we cannot develop resources on 
public lands. This issue is true not just about coal mining. It is true 
about grazing, it is true about timbering, it is true about oil and gas 
exploration--virtually all development on public land.
  The environmental community is instilling this degree of fear in the 
American electorate. It bears no responsibility, no accountability. 
They simply sell American technology short and, by this fear tactic and 
the ability of the media to expound on it and add to it, they are 
generating membership, they are generating dollars, and we are becoming 
more and more dependent on imports, something I am going to talk a 
little bit about later.
  As we reduce our own self-sustaining resource base, we become more 
dependent on imports. Those imports are coming in from nations that do 
not have the same environmental sensitivity that we do. We have the 
ingenuity, we have the technology, we have the American know-how to 
preserve these jobs at home, develop our resources, and do it safely.
  The President's designation of the 1.7-million-acre monument was an 
arrogant act. It was in violation of the intent of the Federal 
environmental laws and procedures the President's own administration 
has so ardently enforce on everyone else.
  Mr. President, I intend, before this session is over, to introduce 
legislation to close this dangerous loophole in our environmental laws. 
It is going to be applicable, obviously, to those States with public 
lands, which are the Western States, to eliminate the necessity and the 
authority of the President to

[[Page S11086]]

continue these land grabs without any congressional evaluation.
  The Antiquities Act of 1906 has a narrow, specific purpose. It was 
never intended to be used in this manner. As I indicated, Alaska and 
Wyoming have been exempt from the act, but other public land States 
should know it could only be a matter of time before they are attacked 
for withdrawals similar to what occurred in Utah.

  The question is not should we have a national monument in Utah. The 
Utah delegation said it would work with the administration on that. The 
question is, should a President ram through such a big Federal land 
change at the last minute without public participation and 
congressional involvement?
  Clearly, we know the answer. The democratic process is being 
circumvented. It is no wonder some people are referring to this action 
as President Clinton's Federal land grab and calling it reelection 
national monument. He says he is merely doing what Teddy Roosevelt did 
by using the Antiquities Act of 1906. But, again, there are many 
important differences. President Roosevelt thought first and acted 
later. Roosevelt acted nearly 100 years ago, before this Nation 
developed environmental laws and procedures for proper and detailed 
land use decisionmaking. I am sorry, President Clinton, you are no 
Teddy Roosevelt.
  (Mr. HATFIELD assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in conjunction with that, I think it is 
noteworthy to recognize President Clinton's themes this week. He 
continues to push the themes that, one, he is the environmental 
President, and, two, he is the export President. Let's examine that for 
a minute. I just shared with you my views on why his decision to lock 
up Utah's vast energy resources was a mistake, but I also want to 
discuss why his rhetoric about exports covers up what is really going 
on with the trade deficit.
  The most recent statistics on the trade deficit were absolutely 
horrible. In July, imports increased to $78.9 billion from $77.9 
billion in June. The largest increases were in industrial supplies and 
materials, primarily the cost of crude petroleum.
  Our exports decreased to $67.2 billion from $69.7 billion in June. 
The trade deficit in goods for the first 6 months of this year amounted 
to $89.6 billion, and this is expected to grow to $170 billion by 
year's end, second only to last year's record $175 billion.
  China and Japan continue as the countries with the largest trade 
imbalance, but focusing only on China and Japan ignores one of the 
major contributors to our trade deficit, and that is our dependence on 
foreign oil. Right now, America is importing 51 percent of its daily 
oil needs. That percentage is expected to rise to two-thirds by the 
year 2000.
  Here is a chart, Mr. President, of the current account balances of 
our top three creditors from 1994 to 1995. Petroleum payments in 1994, 
27 percent, or $44.2 billion; petroleum payments in 1995, 33.2 percent, 
or $57.9 billion. Then there is China, Japan, and others.
  That is what we are looking at when we look at the trade deficit. As 
this chart illustrates, foreign oil dependency translates into one-
third of the total trade deficit. The Department of Energy predicts 
that by the years 2000 and 2002, we will be two-thirds dependent on 
imported oil. Instead of 51 percent, it will be 66 percent.
  What is America doing about its continuing dependency? I think we are 
following counterproductive policies. We are not reducing our oil 
dependency. As I said earlier, the President just locked up huge 
reserves of coal in Utah. This is clean coal. Earlier, he vetoed 
legislation which would have opened up the Arctic oil reserve. That 
passed both the House and the Senate for the first time. That is the 
best chance to find significant stable American sources of oil 
domestically, in the United States.
  I remind my colleagues that Prudhoe Bay has been supplying this 
Nation with nearly 25 percent of its total crude oil utilization for 
the last 18 years. It is in decline. Yet this administration will not 
let us use American technology to go into the areas that are most 
likely to have a major discovery. And with that technology, the 
footprint would be very small, no larger than the Dulles International 
Airport complex, which is about 12,500 acres out of the 19 million 
acres in the area associated with the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
  So the President's actions are certainly disturbing. But I guess they 
are hardly surprising, because if you really look at our energy area--
and as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that is 
my area of responsibility--he is equally unwilling to address and 
promote nuclear power, coal power, hydroelectric power. He strongly 
supports the consumption of natural gas, but is not equally supportive 
of domestic production. He does not want to see additional offshore and 
onshore Federal lands opened up. In short, he is doing virtually 
nothing to reduce our dependence on imported oil and, thereby, address 
our trade deficit.
  During President Clinton's 4 years in office, the United States will 
have accumulated the largest trade deficit in the history of our 
Nation. That is astonishing, when you consider the exchange rate 
records set during the same period. I think this is a part of the 
Clinton record that Americans should understand and consider and 
reflect on a little closer.
  There is another inconsistency relative to energy. As we recognize 
our dependence on nuclear power for about 30 percent of our power-
generating capability, we have accumulated high-level nuclear waste. 
The President refuses to support the plan in Congress to establish in 
Nevada a temporary repository until a permanent repository can be 
determined at Yucca Mountain.
  As far as low-level waste, the President refuses to support a 
congressional proposal giving the ability to the State of California at 
Ward Valley to put in a facility to store the waste even though we have 
given the States the authority. The disturbing thing is, while the 
President, in this election mode, opposes these proposals--responsible 
proposals, proposals that have been supported by State Governors, State 
legislatures, and proposals that have been supported by a majority of 
the U.S. Senate--he and his administration refuse to come up with 
responsible alternatives.
  I have sent letters saying, if you do not like this, what will you 
support? He absolutely ignores the responsibility associated with 
addressing and correcting these exposures.
  Lastly, Mr. President, another part of the Clinton record that should 
not go without remark is the inept and naive approach the 
administration has taken in dealing with some of our foreign 
adversaries. Let me just touch on two recent examples.
  The Clinton administration, some time ago, embarked on a policy 
towards North Korea that can only be called, in my opinion, 
``appeasement,'' and put the United States in a position of being a 
party, almost, to a bribe. Under the so-called negotiated framework 
deal, the Clinton administration was going to provide North Korea with 
$500 million worth of oil--500,000 tons a year--and, along with South 
Korea and Japan, two light-water nuclear reactors worth $4 to $5 
billion.
  What have we received in return for this so-called deal? Have the 
North Koreans acted in good faith? No. The North Koreans held us 
hostage. They said they would stop their own graphite reactor 
construction if they could have this new technology, and only then 
could we go in and examine their storage sites, once the new light-
water reactors were on line.
  Under the deal we negotiated, the Clinton administration was going to 
provide these light-water reactors worth $4 to $5 billion. We saw what 
North Korea did with regard to acting in good faith just yesterday and 
the day before in their relationships with South Korea and the rest of 
the world.
  A North Korean submarine, filled with 26 commandos--I met with the 
Korean Ambassador last evening--tried to infiltrate the south. Some of 
the commandos carried South Korean uniforms with them. They were armed. 
And they had a mission, Mr. President, a mission to infiltrate South 
Korea. But we will hear more about that later.

  Nineteen of the commandos have already been killed. A manhunt 
continues for the remaining infiltrators. But these commandos came from 
a North Korean submarine that beached in the south. The United Nations 
command attempted to deliver a formal protest to the North Korean 
military official in the face of clear evidence of the North Korean 
infiltration. The North

[[Page S11087]]

Korean Government refused to even accept the protest of South Korea.
  So there we have, I think, an extraordinary example of our foreign 
policy, perhaps well-meaning, but indeed to a high degree naive in 
relation to shoring up a deteriorating regime of totalitarianism in 
North Korea, one that, if left to its own weight, in the opinion of the 
Senator from Alaska, would very soon flounder. There is no other area 
in the world as isolated as North Korea. Having visited there a few 
years ago, I can tell you that they cannot feed themselves as a nation. 
They have no energy. They have no capital reserves. They have an 
extraordinary government whose longevity is extremely short, in this 
Senator's opinion.
  So, Mr. President, what has the Clinton administration done? Well, 
have they decided to reconsider the energy bribery deal they have 
negotiated with the north? No. No. They are not reconsidering it. Are 
they so naive they believe the North Korean Government bargains in good 
faith? I wonder. The American people have to wonder when it comes down 
to this administration and President Clinton negotiating with foreign 
adversaries.
  What of the Clinton administration's spin-doctoring claim of 
``success'' after last week's cruise missile attack in Iraq? The 
coalition that President George Bush put together in 1990 is crumbling. 
Saddam Hussein has no fear of crushing the Kurds because he knows that 
U.S. leadership is lacking under this President and this 
administration.
  Just this week we learned that nearly 200 people disappeared. They 
have been murdered, Mr. President. These are people who were providing 
our Government with intelligence. Why didn't we get those people out of 
the country before Saddam and his murderous troops crushed the Kurds?
  Yesterday, CIA chief John Deutch told Congress that Saddam is 
politically stronger today than he was before he sent his troops into 
northern Iraq. Somebody asked the question, well, is Saddam better off 
today than he was 2 weeks ago? The answer is clearly, yes. We have lost 
a good deal of credibility.
  So, Mr. President, it is a very dangerous world we live in. It is 
easy to criticize. But it is important to point out the gross 
inconsistencies associated with these items that I have touched on 
today.
  I think the administration is naive. I think they are gullible. I do 
not think they are equipped, based on their record, to deal with the 
dangers that confront us today and in the immediate future. Mr. 
President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________