[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 69 (Friday, May 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5992-S5993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SMITHSONIAN BROUHAHA

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, turning to another subject, I have been 
concerned about the newspaper reports and stories about the 
Smithsonian's exhibit that was moved within the museum by its managers. 
Many of those newspaper stories and other news stories have indicated 
that I pressured the Smithsonian Museum to move that exhibit. That is 
absolutely not true. No member of my office nor I contacted the 
Smithsonian. I checked with the other two members of the Alaska 
delegation. None has commented on that exhibit or interfered in any 
way.
  When I looked into it, I concluded the Smithsonian was right. It was 
not just an exhibit of beautiful pictures of Alaska--and I love 
beautiful pictures of my State. It was an attempt to use the 
Smithsonian as a place to carry forward the position of the Wilderness 
Society on the question of whether or not oil and gas development 
should take place on the Arctic coast.
  That is a public issue. Suppose I had taken all the photos and all 
the exhibits I have displayed on the floor and took them to the 
Smithsonian and said I wanted them positioned so the people coming in 
can understand why we should go forward in drilling ANWR. I believe the 
Senate would come apart at the seams.
  This action that has been taken is contrary to the basic concept of 
the Smithsonian. It should not be a place for advocacy on a public 
issue. Clearly, that is what happened. It was an exhibit based on a 
book with contributors William Meadows of the Wilderness Society; 
Debbie Miller, of the Alaska Wilderness Society; Fran Mauer, former 
refuge manager; and former President Jimmy Carter, of the Alaska 
Wilderness League.
  Let me describe the cover of the book. The book talks about seasons 
of life and land and a photographic journey through Alaska. That is 
wonderful. They are great photographs. What is the purpose of the book? 
The purpose of the book is to make people think the land depicted in 
this book is endangered. There is a picture of a red sign with caribou, 
labeled ``endangered.'' ``Why is this land connected to us all?''
  Of the 19 million acres of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, all but 1.5 
million is protected. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is already protected. 
It is not endangered. The other 1.5 million acres is an area set aside 
by an amendment offered by Senator Tsongas of Massachusetts, a 
Democrat, and Senator Jackson of Washington, a Democrat. It was passed 
by the Senate, passed by the House, and the bill was signed by 
President Jimmy Carter in 1980 after the election.
  President Carter has a foreword in this book. It says:

       In 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower established the 
     original 8.9 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Range to 
     preserve its unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational 
     values.

  I know that; I helped draft that order. I was at the Interior 
Department as a solicitor of the Department of the Interior.
  President Carter continues:

       Twenty years later, I signed the Alaska National Interest 
     Lands Conservation Act, monumental legislation safeguarded 
     more than 100 million acres of national parks, refuges, and 
     forest lands in Alaska.

  That is true.

       This loss specifically created the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge, doubled the size of the former range, and restricted 
     development in areas that are clearly incompatible with oil 
     exploration.
       Since I left office, there have been repeated proposals to 
     open the Arctic Refuge coastal plain to oil drilling. 
     Those attempts have failed because of tremendous 
     opposition by the American people. . . .

  This is a propaganda book. President Carter signed that law that had 
the Tsongas-Jackson amendment that authorized us to go forward with oil 
and gas development as long as an environmental impact statement 
demonstrated there would be no irreparable harm to the Arctic Plain.
  President Carter has now developed opposition after signing the law 
that authorized oil and gas development. And the law would never have 
passed if it had not permitted it.
  The basic thing today is what to do about these people both in the 
Senate and elsewhere who are trying to persecute the Smithsonian 
officials who saw what they were trying to do. They were trying to use 
the Smithsonian to further their cause in opposition to the discussions 
going on in the Congress on

[[Page S5993]]

ANWR. The House had just passed a bill containing the approval to 
proceed with oil and gas leasing. They knew that. They wanted to put it 
up in the Smithsonian and have all the visitors to the beautiful 
Smithsonian look at this exhibit and come to the conclusion that those 
who propose proceeding with the authority under the 1980 act that 
President Carter signed, are somehow wrong.
  That is advocacy on an issue that is pending before the U.S. 
Congress, and it is wrong to use the Smithsonian for that purpose. I do 
not believe we should let it go unnoticed. People are criticizing the 
management of the Smithsonian for having recognized that. I will defend 
them. They were right.
  As a matter of fact, I would defend them if someone from my point of 
view went to the Smithsonian and demanded space to use the Smithsonian 
to advocate my point of view. That is not right. They have every right 
in the world to produce this book, every right in the world to publish 
it, to distribute it, to sell it, and to advocate a position against 
what I believe in. The constitutional right of free speech in this 
country gives them the absolute right to do what they want to do, but 
they do not have the right to use federally supported facilities like 
the Smithsonian and demand the right to use it and castigate those who 
manage the institution, who caught them in the act and said: You cannot 
do that.
  I applaud the Smithsonian managers and I tell them unquestionably, I 
want them to notify me if there is any further attempt to bully them. 
We are going to get to the bottom of this one because it is absolutely 
wrong to challenge and castigate people who are doing their job 
correctly. The Smithsonian did the proper thing, and their opponents 
should admit it and stop this.
  Every article I have seen, every radio account that I have seen, 
anything that has been said about this, indicates I am the one who put 
pressure on the Smithsonian to move it. It is not true. We did not do 
that. But I do applaud the people who made the decision that this is 
wrong.
  I think the Congress should insist that the Smithsonian and other 
Federal facilities not be used for advocacy, pro or con, on legislation 
pending in the U.S. Congress.

                          ____________________