[Senate Hearing 107-33]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-33
GALE NORTON NOMINATION
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
NOMINEE TO BE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
__________
JANUARY 18, 2001
JANUARY 19, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-291 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
CONRAD BURNS, Montana
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Andrew D. Lundquist, Republican Staff Director
David G. Dye, Republican Chief Counsel
James P. Beirne, Republican Deputy Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearings:
January 18, 2001............................................. 1
January 19, 2001............................................. 45
STATEMENTS
January 18, 2001
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado................... 7
Bayh, Hon. Evan, U.S. Senator from Indiana....................... 33
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 1
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 39
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado........ 5
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 42
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 26
Dominici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 22
Dorgan, Hon. Byron, U.S. Senator from North Dakota............... 19
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Florida...................... 28
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska............... 2
Norton, Gale, Nominee to be Secretary of the Department of the
Interior....................................................... 11
Owens, Hon. Bill, Governor, State of Colorado.................... 8
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon..................... 37
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 35
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 24
January 19, 2001
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 45
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska............... 45
Norton, Gale, Nominee to be Secretary of the Department of the
Interior....................................................... 46
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 91
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 129
GALE NORTON NOMINATION
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Chairman Bingaman. Now, moving on to our hearing this
afternoon, I would propose to follow the same format that we
used this morning. That is, that I would make a brief opening
statement, Senator Murkowski would then make whatever statement
he would like, we would then call upon the two Senators from
Colorado and Governor Owens to introduce the nominee, and then
call on Ms. Norton to make her statement.
Once that is completed, we would then go to questions and
have an 8-minute round of questions from each member. If there
are additional questions after that first round, we will have
additional rounds of questions and they will be 5 minutes each.
So with that set of ground rules, let me go ahead and make a
short statement.
The purpose of this hearing this afternoon is to consider
the nomination of Gale Norton to be the Secretary of the
Interior. The office of the Secretary of the Interior is one of
the highest positions of public trust in our Federal
Government. The Secretary is the principal steward of nearly a
third of our Nation's land. The Secretary is the chief trustee
of much of the Nation's energy and mineral wealth as well.
The Secretary is the principal guardian of our national
parks and our most revered historic sites and much of our fish
and wildlife. It is the job of the Secretary of the Interior to
protect this precious legacy and to pass it on to future
generations.
While the President is clearly entitled to appoint Cabinet
members who share his political views, the Senate has a
constitutional duty to ensure that the Secretary of the
Interior will be a faithful steward of the public lands and our
national treasures. I have no doubt that Ms. Norton is an
extremely decent and capable person, and we have many
recommendations to that effect. I do have doubts about some of
the policies that she has promoted and whether they are
consistent with the responsibilities of the job of Secretary of
the Interior.
For over 20 years, she has consistently championed the
interests of individuals as opposed to the public interest in
many of the issues that come before this committee and before
the office of the Secretary of the Interior. She has championed
the rights of States as opposed to the Federal Government and
the interests of economic development rather than environmental
protection in many cases.
These positions may have been understandable for a lawyer
representing her clients. They certainly may have been
understandable for an attorney general of a Western State, and
I have some experience in that regard. They may have been
understandable for a Republican Senate candidate. But some of
those positions are disturbing, at least to my mind, in a
nominee for Secretary of the Interior.
This hearing will afford Ms. Norton the opportunity to
state her views on the role of the Secretary of the Interior,
explain how she can reconcile her past positions with the
responsibilities that she would have entrusted to her in this
new position. Her answers to these questions will determine how
I am able to vote on this nomination.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman.
I want to commend you and your staff, working with our staff,
for the structure of this hearing. I think that with the
testimony that we are going to hear we are going to be able to
answer many of the questions that we have relative to this
nominee.
I want to commend our President-elect Bush for nominating
the first woman, the first woman for the Secretary of the
Interior. I think it is an outstanding nomination of a
candidate who has certainly the knowledge, the experience, to
take on one of the most challenging positions in the Executive
Branch.
Her responsibility is one in my opinion of balance. She is
going to have to balance the protection of our Nation's
resources with the realism that we need to develop those
resources using the best technology available. I think one of
the themes that have been suggested is using the fuels of today
to get to the technology of tomorrow.
Now, this is a balance in my opinion that has swung
dramatically out of proportion in the last 8 years, as
evidenced by the energy crisis that is existing in this country
today, more particularly in the State of California, where as a
matter of fact to some extent the lights are out.
Now, I have heard criticism that Ms. Norton has been
identified with groups that advocate such things as more
complete appreciation of the economic consequences of
governmental action or a better understanding of the balance
provided by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. The issue
of the power of the Federal Government vis-a-vis the States has
always been a contentious issue and it is not going to go away.
But there has always been room for diversity and debate in
the marketplace of ideas, and that includes the Department of
the Interior. Did his work as president of the League of
Conservation Voters disqualify the previous Secretary, Bruce
Babbitt? Did George Frampton's lobbying for and his position as
head of the Wilderness Society disqualify him? No. They both
had strong advocacies for their point of view. I guess it
depends on whether you happen to agree with their point of
view. So it is a question of balance.
Now, those on the ideological side of the current
protesters are going to be heard through, I think, various
members of this committee. Ms. Norton has been accused only of
guilt by association, has been tarred with innuendoes and
brushed with, I think, misinterpretation.
Well, today let us look at the record and proceed with this
nomination hearing. You know, this committee has had a long
history of asking tough questions on policy issues and avoiding
character assassination, and I know this tradition can
continue. Senator Bingaman and I have worked closely together
during the time I was chairman and a day and a half or so. We
will continue to work closely together when I resume that
responsibility, assuming my colleagues on the right are of that
particular disposition. And if they are not, we can talk
later--no, I did not mean that.
[Laughter.]
Now, I do not think the implication of the Natural Resource
Defense Council that Gale Norton is an anarchist should have
any place in this society. On the other hand, caution is in
order. We need the balance, as I have stated.
I often recall with some amusement when the so-called
``cell phone naturalist'' drives his or her sports utility
vehicle into the national forest. He calls home on his cell
phone, looks for direction from his global positioning system,
checks the time on his watch. As he communes, I guess, with
nature, he makes the decision there and then that no mining, no
energy development, should ever take place in this spot. He
ignores the fact that each person in this Nation uses about
22,000 pounds of non-energy minerals each day and those
minerals must come, they must come from somewhere.
We look at the timber resources, which is renewable. Do we
want them to come from the rain forests of South America, where
there is very little environmental control, or do we want to
bring it along on a renewable basis from our own forests in
this country, where we can do it right with the regeneration
process?
At the same time, the beauty that this so-called, I guess,
cell phone naturalist recognizes, we have to have a realistic
claim on protection for future generations. So again, it is a
question of balance. Balance is the key in my opinion at the
Department of the Interior, and I think Ms. Norton will provide
that balance.
The Secretary is responsible for our public domain, the
public lands that support the wilderness, recreation, grazing,
forestry, mining, oil, gas development, and many, many other
uses as well. If we are going to deal honestly with our energy
situation, we will need carefully to examine the process for
granting right of ways. How can you generate more energy
sources if you do not have right of ways? The same can be said
for transmission corridors and the needs for rural communities
for access.
Unlike the various interest groups who have the luxury of
advocating only one position, the Secretary has been given the
mandate to balance those needs and be a steward of the land on
behalf of all Americans, not just special interest groups. As a
consequence, I think we would all agree that the Secretary has
trust responsibilities as well. They go into the Indian tribes.
Very frankly, the record there is not a very good one. The
management of the trust funds in my opinion has been a
disaster. Activities under the mining laws, the Mineral Leasing
Act, the outer continental shelf, will all come under her
direction.
We have the capability to develop the vast supplies of oil
and gas in this Nation in an environmentally sensitive manner
and we should do so. What is not being given credibility is the
advanced technology that we have been able to develop as we, if
you will, evaluate the risks associated with that development.
I am reminded in my own State of Alaska about 15 years ago
we brought in the tenth largest field and we used 56 acres. It
was called Endicott. It was the technology of 15 to 20 years
ago. Given the opportunity, because of our increased dependence
on imported oil, which is about 57 percent and the Department
of Energy indicated this morning it would be up to 62 percent
within the next 4 years, we have an opportunity to open up a
portion of the coastal plain. That is 19 million acres up
there, an area the size of the State of South Carolina. Yet
industry tells us that, if the oil is there, the footprint is
2,000 acres. That is what is lacking in the consideration in my
opinion by the environmental community as we look at our
ability, by using the technology, to open up our resources in
an appropriate manner.
Now, as Secretary you are going to have the responsibility
for the U.S. territories. Many people overlook that, but we
cannot on this committee because we are the committee of
oversight. Our record is not very good there. The Virgin
Islands are on the edge of bankruptcy. American Samoa is
surviving only by borrowing against its portion of the tobacco
settlement. The Northern Mariana Islands has an economy that
has been allowed to become totally dependent on an immigration
and labor situation that simply should not exist under the
American flag, and to a large degree it is ignored. Senator
Akaka and I have worked very hard on that. We have been over
there and observed that situation, and I can tell you it is
despicable.
All of these areas require an openness and a willingness to
undertake the balance necessary to provide for the needs of
this and future generations. I am confident that she will
carefully enforce the laws and work with the Congress and
particularly this committee.
On a personal note, Ms. Norton has been to Alaska on
several occasions and that is several more times than some of
the self-appointed experts who want to manage my State. She
knows what the effect of decisions made in Washington can be on
local economies and how dependent those economies are on the
Federal estate. She has, I think, a distinguished record of
public service and the respect of those she has dealt with as
well. She has also had a record of openness and being directly
involved in decisions. I am certainly pleased to support her
nomination.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to add for the record the names
of 12 governors supporting her nomination: the Governors of
Arizona, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming, Texas, North Dakota, Nevada, and Montana, as well as
Colorado.
I thank the chair.
Chairman Bingaman. We now have our two distinguished
colleagues from Colorado here to introduce the nominee, as well
as the Governor of Colorado. So first I will call on Senator
Campbell.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a member of this committee, I am honored and pleased to
be introducing my friend and my colleague of many years, my
fellow----
Senator Murkowski. Would you pull that mike up a little
bit, Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Sorry.
I am pleased to introduce my friend and colleague Gale
Norton from Colorado. She is overwhelmingly qualified and the
absolute right person for the Secretary of the Interior post. I
have known Gale, as all of us have here at this table, for many
years and let me state right up front and for the record, she
has a long and distinguished record of doing the right thing
always.
She is a consensus builder, which might just be illustrated
by her 8 years as Colorado's Attorney General, where she served
under a Democratic governor and still accomplished many
initiatives for the betterment of Colorado, including Superfund
cleanups. For more than 20 years, she has provided leadership
on environmental and public lands issues and has demonstrated a
responsible, common sense approach in preserving our natural
heritage.
In my view, in fact, she is being accused now, as you
probably read in the newspapers, of being not centrist enough.
But I liken that to the current administration, which has in
the last few years advocated tearing down dams. I think if you
went to California now and talked to the people who are closing
their factories and the lights are shut off in their
restaurants and they cannot see the stoplights because they are
out on the corners and so on and you talk to them and said, is
tearing down the energy-producing dams a centrist view, they
would probably say not so and they would agree much more with
Gale Norton, who believes in the careful production of energy.
Another significant fact to know about Gale Norton is that
she is committed to enforcing the law as it is written and not
by rule and regulation. As Attorney General of Colorado, she
created an environmental crimes task force to prosecute the
most flagrant polluters. She has played a leading role in the
cleanup of pollution at mining sites to protect the environment
and restore Colorado's natural resources, and she led the way
in ensuring a safe cleanup of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal,
personally arguing and winning a landmark case in court to
force the Federal Government and an oil company to meet
Colorado standards for environmental protection and public
health, which in many cases are more stringent than Federal
standards.
Gale Norton believes that everyone has a role to play in
defending and preserving our environment. Businesses and
communities, government and people, all need to have a seat at
the table.
As you know, in the last couple days nine more large tracts
of land have been locked up in the West without any local input
whatsoever. Gale believes that local people should be involved
in decisionmaking and that their lifestyle that is often
dependent on those public lands should be considered.
As a researcher at Stanford University, Ms. Norton
researched emissions trading approaches like those later
adopted in the Clean Air Act. These approaches created market-
based incentives for businesses to reduce emissions. Gale
Norton supported the Colorado audit law, a law which was co-
sponsored by several Democrats and signed by a Democratic
governor, to achieve better environmental protection by
encouraging early and full identification of environmental
problems and, most important, long-term decisions.
Another issue which is important to many of the members on
this committee since they come from public lands States in the
West is that of water rights. Gale Norton has championed
Western water rights over the years. Growing populations and
changing values are placing increasing demands on our existing
and limited water supplies in the West, resulting in water use
conflicts throughout the country.
Recent conflicts are particularly apparent out where we
live, where agriculture needs for water are often in direct
conflict with urban needs, like the demand for water for the
Endangered Species Act, for recreation and picturesque scenery.
In the arid West, naturally scarce water supplies and growing
urban populations have increased Federal-State tensions because
States have historically had primacy in interstate water
allocation.
Debate over Western water centers around the issue of how
best to plan for and manage the use of this limited resource. I
believe that Gale Norton will be able to use her background in
water issues to build a consensus and start settling some of
the disputes on water. She was one of the first and early
advocates of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement
Act, commonly called the ALP, which you, Chairman Bingaman, and
I both supported over the years.
As the past chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee and I
suppose the next chairman in a few more days again, I believe
that Gale will effectively manage Indian affairs with the
Department of the Interior, which it has responsibility for.
During her 8-year tenure as Colorado's Attorney General, Gale
Norton developed a strong working relationship with Colorado's
two tribes, the Ute Mountain Tribe and the Southern Ute Tribe.
Together they worked on a number of important matters,
including water rights settlements and environmental
regulation, taxation, and a whole bunch of other complex
issues. In fact, she testified a number of times before our
committee. She is very knowledgeable in Indian law and she will
bring that knowledge and experience of working with the tribes
to the Department, and I am confident that she will continue
that work.
I have two letters I would ask unanimous consent, from the
Ute Mountain Indian Tribe and the Southern Ute Tribe supporting
her nomination, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. We will include those in the record.
Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski mentioned
the trust fund debacle over there at the Interior Department.
All of us on this committee are aware that there is $2.5
billion of missing money in the Bureau of Indian Affairs
accounts that they say is there but nobody can find it. She has
made that a priority, to try to straighten that up and make
sure the people who actually own that money, the individual
Indians living on trust land, will receive their just dues.
Mr. Chairman, the Ute Tribes strongly support her, but in
talking with other tribes around the country, they also do. All
the ones I have talked to also support her.
She listens to common sense while she searches for common
ground. Unlike many in Washington, she understands that real
environmental solutions seldom come just from the Beltway
professionals. They come from real people with honest concerns
for the land and the water, people on the ground dealing with
those concerns on a daily basis. She will insist that the
Federal Government work with local communities to find the best
way to preserve and protect our Nation's natural resources.
I am pleased to say that Gale Norton has my full support
and will make an outstanding Secretary of the Interior.
Frankly, I am a little disturbed about the opposition. I saw
this morning's Washington Post, as you probably did, with a
full page ad taken out by some of the extreme environmental
community, where they have half of her face on the page and
half of her face off of the page.
I know that it seems to be in vogue now to disagree with
the nominees by embarking on some form of character
assassination. But I would compare that senseless business in
the Post this morning with the very thoughtful and carefully
written editorial by our colleague John Breaux, who is a man
that I think everybody in this body supports, who basically
says in his editorial that she is a good person for the job and
should be supported. Those shrill voices of the extreme
elements of our society we are hearing now in the current
process of confirming our nominees, I think they have very
limited perspectives and make up in shrillness what they lack
in common sense in my view.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee I offer my
support once again to Gale Norton, and I thank you.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to be
here to be able to introduce to you Gale Norton, Secretary-
designate for the Department of the Interior. I have known Gale
Norton for some time. I consider her to be a very close friend.
She is a great Coloradoan. She was born and educated in the
State of Colorado. Today she enjoys many of the natural
resources we have in our great State.
I want to take a few moments to talk about her resume. As
you might imagine, she has a long one. So what I have done is I
have selected those parts of her resume which I think is very
important to the committee's deliberation today as they
consider her nomination by the President for Secretary of the
Interior.
She graduated magna cum laude from the University of Denver
in 1975. Then she went on to graduate from the College of Law
with a juris doctor degree in 1978. She is a member of the Law
School Honor Society.
She moved forward from that point with her academic
credentials to become a part of the faculty of the University
of Denver. She is truly an academician. She knows how to
evaluate issues, she knows how to talk about the pros and cons
of various issues that may come before her. Because of this
strong academic background, she was frequently called upon to
give speeches and to talk to groups in Colorado and across the
country on issues that were important to them in which she was
considered an expert.
She went on from the University of Colorado to serve as a
law clerk for the Colorado Court of Appeals. In the 1980's she
decided to come to Washington and she worked for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and then moved over to the
Department of the Interior as Associate Solicitor for
Conservation and Wildlife.
Then she returned back to Colorado, she ran for public
office and was elected by the people of Colorado to serve as
their Attorney General. She served from 1991 to 1999 as
Colorado's Attorney General.
The point that I would like to make to the committee is
that Gale Norton has had a broad experience in her life. It
includes her having to walk in many of the shoes of somebody
who has worked for a Federal agency here in Washington in the
Department of Agriculture, as well as in the Department of the
Interior. She has had to walk in the shoes of the State from
which she was born and educated and representing many of her
constituents as the Attorney General of the State of Colorado.
I think that when we look at her academic background, we
look at her experience both at the Federal level and at the
State level, I think she is uniquely qualified to be the next
Secretary of the Interior and I strongly endorse her, because I
think her total of 20 years of experience on environmental and
natural resource issues will make her a great Secretary of the
Department of the Interior.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you very much.
We are honored to have Governor Bill Owens from Colorado
here also to introduce the nominee. Please go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL OWENS, GOVERNOR,
STATE OF COLORADO
Governor Owens. Senator Bingaman, thank you very much.
members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to say a
few words on behalf of Gale Norton.
It is good to be back in the Senate. Years ago, 25 years
ago, I served on the staff of Senator John Tower, and I regret
to this day what happened to him, to that fine American, during
his Senate confirmation. Years before that I served with Jim
Wright. I was Jim Wright's page in the House of
Representatives. I have a lot of respect for what it is you are
charged with doing this afternoon.
I guess what I really hope is that we do not take this fine
person and tear her apart through this process, because I know
Gale Norton, I have worked with her, I have known her for 15
years, and this is a dedicated public servant who has always
done what she thought was best for the people of Colorado.
I am going to not be redundant to what my friends Senator
Campbell and Senator Allard have already said. You have heard
about her distinguished 8-year career as Attorney General. You
know, when you are looking to see where Gale Norton comes from
it is important to note that she was elected in 1990 in a
landslide as a Republican in the same year that Governor Roy
Roemer was re-elected by a landslide as a Democrat in Colorado.
The same thing occurred in 1994. Gale Norton won in a
landslide on the Republican side, Roy Roemer won in a landslide
on the Democratic side. It is because Colorado is a centrist
State. It votes for the person, not the party. In voting for
Gale Norton, it was voting for a person who really represented
the mainstream that I think is the reality of Colorado.
You are going to hear a lot today about a number of issues.
Just from a Colorado perspective, we have a self-audit law in
the State of Colorado, as do 29 other States in this Union. In
Colorado this law passed, for reference purposes, by a vote of
60 to 4 in our House of Representatives, obviously bipartisan;
it passed our Senate by a vote of 24 to 8, again clearly
bipartisan; was then signed into law by Governor Roy Roemer. It
was Gale Norton's job as Attorney General to defend that
Colorado law in court, a defense which she performed admirably.
But that law was a bipartisan law, a well-intentioned and I
believe successful effort to bring more companies into a
partnership in terms of cleaning up the environment. Again,
today it has been copied throughout these United States.
You are going to hear about a mine called Summitville.
Summitville is a disaster which we are all familiar with in
Colorado. Just let the record reflect that that mine was cited
in 1983 under the administration of my very good friend
Governor Dick Lamb. The environmental failure occurred in 1986.
Gale Norton was elected in 1990. She took office in 1991.
She sued the owner of Summitville in 1992, sued the owner again
to keep the mine filtering system open when that owner declared
bankruptcy, sued the personal owner of that mine in 1996, and 3
weeks ago the current Attorney General, Ken Salazar of
Colorado, a Democrat, was able to settle with that owner for
almost $30 million based on the work that he did and based on
the work that Gale Norton did. That is one reason I believe
that Ken Salazar, our Democratic Attorney General in Colorado,
along with four other Democratic attorney generals, has
endorsed Gale's nomination.
I am so proud of what she did with Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
This is a chemical warfare plant that we have just outside of
the Denver metropolitan area. She sued the Federal Government
to force a cleaner standard, a higher standard of cleanup,
actually to force the Federal Government to follow Colorado's
standard rather than Federal standards for the cleanup of that
site, and she won that lawsuit. In suing the Federal
Government, she also sued Shell Oil Company.
She has done the same thing with Rocky Flats, our nuclear
bomb factory, which also is right outside Denver, Colorado. She
has gone to court to allow individuals to sue the Federal
Government under the Superfund Act.
This is a lady that is moderate and centrist and has worked
hard for our environment in Colorado and I know would do an
outstanding job as Secretary of the Interior.
One final issue that I know you are going to hear about. It
concerns a legal case called the Adderand case in the State of
Colorado. It is a case involving minority set-asides and
involving a lawsuit against the State of Colorado by a
gentleman named Adderand. Colorado had in place a set of
required mandatory set-asides for construction projects. Over
the years the Supreme Court had successively weakened its
standard and in fact made it clear that our Adderand case was
indefensible in court based on Supreme Court dicta.
So there was an attempt in Colorado to pursue this case to
higher courts. Our Governor, Governor Roy Roemer, wanted to
pursue the appeals higher. Gale Norton as an attorney and as
Attorney General said, we are going to lose if we do so. I know
that, Senator Bingaman, you have been an attorney general and I
know we have a former governor, Mr. Bayh, Senator Bayh. She
said to her client: We cannot win this case and we should not
pursue it.
Under Colorado law, the Governor had the right to pursue it
and did so by retaining outside counsel, a former Supreme Court
justice, and we lost twice in the U.S. Supreme Court. She was
fulfilling her oath as an attorney and as Attorney General of
Colorado in terms of following what the Supreme Court had told
us was legal.
So gentlemen, I really appreciate your courtesy in allowing
a Governor to speak to you today. I am telling you that
Colorado is proud of Gale Norton. As a State senator, I voted
on 266 of Governor Roemer's appointees in my 6 years in the
State senate. I voted for 264 of that Governor's appointees. I
understand the constitutional responsibility you have to advise
and consent. I just ask you to, as I know you will, Mr.
Chairman, give this lady a fair hearing. As you do so, I am
confident she will be confirmed.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you for your statement. Thank all
three of you for your statements.
Ms. Norton, I am required to administer the oath to you.
But before I do so, did you have family members you wanted to
introduce before we went through that formality?
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my
husband, John Hughes.
Chairman Bingaman. We welcome him to the committee.
[Applause.]
Chairman Bingaman. The rules of the committee which apply
to all nominees require that the nominee be sworn in connection
with her testimony. Could you please rise and raise your right
hand, please.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Norton. I do.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you. Why don't you be seated.
Let me ask you three questions. Will you be available to
appear before this committee and other congressional committees
to represent departmental positions and respond to issues of
concern to the Congress if you are confirmed?
Ms. Norton. Yes, I will be.
Chairman Bingaman. Are you aware of any personal holdings,
investments, or interests that could constitute a conflict or
create the appearance of such a conflict should you be
confirmed and assume the office to which you have been
nominated by the President?
Ms. Norton. I have worked with the Office of Government
Ethics to review my finances. We have determined that there is
one company in which I own stock, that I will divest and so
that will not be a continuing conflict. I have also taken
additional steps to ensure that appearances of conflict are
alleviated. For example, I had a tax-sheltered annuity that was
established when I worked with Mountain States Legal
Foundation. I will be moving that into another program so there
is absolutely no connection with the foundation.
Chairman Bingaman. The final question: Are you involved or
do you have any assets held in blind trusts?
Ms. Norton. No, sir, I do not.
Chairman Bingaman. Why don't you go ahead with your
statement, then. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF GALE NORTON, NOMINEE TO BE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
of the committee. I am honored to appear before you today as
President-elect Bush's nominee for Secretary of the Interior. I
am pleased to have this opportunity to talk with you and to
answer any questions that you might have. I am glad to have
this chance to tell you something about the goals that
President-elect Bush and I share and which we hope to achieve
if you see fit to confirm me as Secretary of the Interior.
As you all know, America is a land of singular beauty.
Americans are proud of the many exquisite natural treasures
within our shores. President-elect Bush believes, as I do, that
the top priority of the Department of the Interior must be to
conserve those natural treasures.
One of President-elect Bush's priorities is to protect our
National Park System. We plan to return scientists to our parks
and to work with Congress to eliminate the major maintenance
backlogs that have been obstacles to resource protection, and
to do that within 5 years. This initiative would help restore
our national parks and ensure a positive legacy of protecting
our cultural, natural, and recreational treasures for Americans
today and in the future.
The great wild places and unspoiled landscapes of this
country are the common heritage of all Americans and we must
both conserve them and manage them for Americans living today
and for the Americans of the future, our children and our
children's children. That is our goal.
I don't think any of us here today would disagree on that
goal. In that I believe lies the basis for common ground. We
have the opportunity for bipartisan environmental cooperation
and leadership.
I have worked for more than 20 years on environmental
issues. I am proud of my accomplishments: preserving endangered
species, cleaning out mountain valleys polluted by mining,
working to convert the Rocky Mountain Arsenal from a place
polluted by pesticides and nerve gas residues to a wildlife
refuge. Based on these experiences, I am firmly committed to a
process of consultation and collaboration. We should listen to
all voices and involve all citizens. That is fair.
It is also wise. People are a magnificent resource for
ideas, for knowledge, for insights. I've lived and worked here
in Washington. I've also lived and worked in the great American
West. Those of us here in Washington need to be good partners
with the Americans living in other parts of this country and in
our territories. America is a stronger Nation because of the
diversity of its people. These people hold many different views
and perspectives. We need to work with them, to involve them,
to benefit from their creativity and their capacity to
innovate.
One top priority that I want to mention to you today
concerns the special responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Interior with regard to American Indians. I think we should all
recognize that the situation in Indian country is not as it
should be. There is much that I believe we can do, in
partnership with our Nation's proud Native American tribes, to
improve conditions and provide a more hopeful future.
President-elect Bush has said many times that he will leave
no child behind. To accomplish that requires that we improve
the schools that serve more than 50,000 Native American
children. A good education is the key to a better life for any
child, whether that child lives in Washington, D.C., or Miami,
Florida, or on a reservation in New Mexico. Recognizing the
historic relationship of the Federal Government and Native
American tribal governments, I will work very hard to achieve
real results for every Indian child.
President-elect Bush has proposals to build conservation
partnerships, to help States, local communities, and private
landowners to conserve wildlife habitat, watersheds, and open
space. I am excited by the chance to work together on these
proposals. Working together, there is much that we can do to
promote conservation in the United States.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will be candid
in telling you that I am both a conservative and a
conservationist. I see no conflict there. In fact, I am a
compassionate conservative and a passionate conservationist. I
believe that too is entirely consistent. If confirmed as
Secretary of the Interior, I intend to make the conservation of
America's natural resources my top priority.
Using consultation and collaboration, forging partnerships
with interested citizens, we can succeed in our effort to
conserve America's most precious places. What is more, we can
achieve this while maintaining America's prosperity and
economic dynamism, while respecting constitutional rights and
nurturing diverse traditions and cultures.
It won't always be easy. It will require a lot of hard work
and a willingness to be creative, to think outside the usual
boxes. That is the mission that President-elect Bush has asked
me to undertake. With your help, your wisdom, and your
cooperation, I believe that we can succeed.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gale Norton, Nominee to be Secretary of the
Department of the Interior
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the
Committee. I am honored to appear before you today as President-elect
Bush's nominee to be Secretary of the Interior.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk with you and to
answer your questions. And I'm glad to have this chance to tell you a
little about the goals that President-elect Bush and I hope to achieve
should you see fit to confirm me as Secretary of the Interior.
As you all know, America is a land of singular beauty. Americans
are proud of the many exquisite natural treasures we have within our
shores. President-elect Bush believes, as I do, that the top priority
of the Department of the Interior must be to conserve those natural
treasures.
One of President-Elect Bush's priorities is to protect our National
Park System, return scientists to the parks, and work with Congress to
eliminate the major maintenance and resource protection backlog within
five years. This initiative would help restore our national parks and
ensure a positive legacy of protecting our cultural, natural and
recreational resources for Americans today and in the future.
The great wild places and unspoiled landscapes of this country are
the common heritage of all Americans, and we must both conserve them
and manage them for Americans living today, and for Americans of the
future--our children and our children's children. That is the goal. And
I don't think any of us here would disagree with that goal. In that, I
believe, lies the basis for common ground and, yes, for bipartisan
environmental cooperation and leadership.
Let me tell you a little about how I think we can best achieve this
common goal. I have worked for more than 20 years on environmental
issues. As Attorney General, I involved local communities, as well as
State and federal officials, in the cleanup of the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal and the Leadville Superfund site. Our enforcement actions
ranged from government sites to private mining interests, utility
plants and water exploration.
As Associate Solicitor, one of my proudest accomplishments was
helping keep the California condor from becoming extinct. Based on
these experiences, I am firmly committed to a process of consultation
and collaboration. We should listen to all voices and involve all
citizens in decision-making because that is fair. But we also should
listen because that is wise. People are a magnificent resource--for
ideas, for knowledge, for insights.
I have lived and worked here in Washington. I have lived and worked
in the great American West. Those of us here in Washington need to be
good partners with Americans living in other parts of the United States
and its territories. America is a stronger nation because of the
diversity of its people. Those people hold many different views and
perspectives. We need to work with them, to involve them, to benefit
from their creativity and capacity to innovate.
This approach, I would submit to you, is a fundamentally democratic
approach--and it is the approach that I favor, and the approach I will
adopt if I am confirmed as Secretary of the Interior.
I also intend to take a ``performance-focused'' approach. It is not
enough for the Federal government to have good intentions--we need to
measure outcomes and, when necessary, correct our course so that we get
where we aim to go.
To help in this regard, I intend to use as fully as possible the
new technologies available to us; to employ the new digital tools, to
implement ``e-government'' effectively as a means to encourage public
participation, to make the Department of the Interior more open and
more accessible.
Another top priority I want to mention to you today concerns the
special responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior with regard
to American Indians. I think we all recognize that the situation in
Indian Country is not what it should be. There is much that I believe
we can do, in partnership with our nation's proud Native American
tribes, to improve conditions and create a more hopeful future.
President-elect Bush has said many times that he will ``leave no
child behind.'' To accomplish that requires that we improve the schools
that serve more than 50,000 elementary and secondary Native American
students, and increase the educational opportunities available to
Indian children. A good education is the key to a better life for any
child--whether that child lives in Washington D.C., Miami, Florida, or
on a reservation in New Mexico.
Recognizing the historic relationship of the Federal government and
individual Native American tribal governments, I am convinced we can do
better in this sphere. Indeed, we must do better. With your help and
cooperation, I will work very hard to achieve real results for all the
children of Indian country.
In addition, I am looking forward to working with the talented men
and women who keep the Department of the Interior going from one
administration to the next, regardless of which party is in the White
House. I want to open the Department's doors of opportunity to all
Americans who have the skills and the drive to participate in this
great mission of conservation.
President-Elect Bush has proposals to build conservation
partnerships--to help states, local communities and private landowners
to conserve wildlife habitat, watersheds and open space. Working
together, there is much we can do to promote conservation in the United
States.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I will be candid in
telling you that I am both a conservative and a conservationist. I see
no conflict there. In fact, I am also a compassionate conservative--and
a passionate conservationist. I believe that, too, is entirely
consistent.
As I said when I began my remarks, if confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior I intend to make the conservation of America's natural
treasures my top priority.
Utilizing the approach I have outlined--consultation and
collaboration, forging partnerships with all interested citizens and
groups including, not least, those most affected by Federal decisions--
we can succeed in our effort to conserve America's most precious
places. What's more, we can achieve this while maintaining America's
prosperity and economic dynamism, while respecting constitutional
rights, and diverse traditions and values.
It won't always be easy. It will require a lot of hard work and the
willingness to be creative, to think outside the usual boxes. But this
is the mission that President-elect Bush has asked me to undertake. And
with your help and your wisdom and your cooperation, I believe we can
succeed. Years ago, the eminent environmentalist, biologist and
Pulitzer Prize-winner, Rene Dubos, advised us to ``think globally, act
locally.''
I think that is still good advice. Let me leave you with one
additional thought from Rene Dubos which, I believe also is relevant to
us and to our mission today:
``We cannot escape from the past,'' Dubos said, ``but neither can
we avoid inventing the future.
``With our knowledge and a sense of responsibility for the welfare
of humankind and the Earth, we can create new environments that are
ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding,
and favorable to the continued growth of civilization.
``But the wooing of the Earth will have a lastingly successful
outcome only if we create conditions in which both humankind and the
Earth retain the essence of their wildness.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you distinguished Members of the
Committee.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Let me start with some questions. Your statement about your
priorities is welcome and I certainly heard that with great
interest. A few years ago, according to a writing that you did,
you described yourself as ``a free market conservative, an
advocate of judicial restraint, as well as a champion of
States' rights.'' Over the years you have taken some positions
on the Takings Clause, for example, on the Federal taxing
power, on the Tenth Amendment, on the now long discredited
theory about economic due process, which seem, at least as I
read some of those earlier writings of yours, to be at odds
with mainstream legal thought.
Can you give this committee assurance that, if confirmed,
you would feel comfortable enforcing the existing laws and
regulations of the Department of the Interior as they now
stand?
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I have served 8 years in the
capacity of a State Attorney General, enforcing the laws of
Colorado and of the United States. I feel very comfortable in
enforcing the laws as they are written. I will be fully
committed to ensuring that our Nation's environmental laws and
laws for the protection of natural resources will be fully
enforced.
Chairman Bingaman. Many of the Republican members of
Congress, some on this committee, have been sharply critical of
the environmental initiatives and policies of Secretary Babbitt
and of President Clinton and his administration. Which, if any,
of those legal or policy positions that have been adopted by
the Department of the Interior during this last 8 years would
you depart from or attempt to change?
Ms. Norton. There are many things that have been adopted
over the past few years. We will be looking at what needs to be
changed in our views and at the many things that will remain
the same. We will examine issues across the board and apply the
best legal standards, as well as the views that I believe many
of us would share, to ensure that we are doing the best to
preserve our natural resources.
At this point I am not sure where we may depart from the
past administration, but we will carefully examine those things
and work with this Congress in order to examine issues.
Chairman Bingaman. One issue that the President and the
Secretary of the Interior, the current Secretary of the
Interior, have been roundly criticized about by Republicans
here in the Congress is this issue of designation of national
monuments. I believe this President has designated 19 areas as
national monuments under the authority that he has under the
Antiquities Act.
Do you believe that President Clinton's use of that
Antiquities Act was appropriate or not?
Ms. Norton. The goal of preserving lands is an admirable
goal and I share the goal of trying to be sure that we are
identifying those areas that ought to be natural treasures and
setting those aside. The process in which those decisions were
made is one that causes me concern. Many of those decisions
were made through a top-down process, without consulting the
people who are most affected by those decisions.
President-elect Bush has established his view, and I
certainly share that, that decisions about the land should be
made in a process that includes the people who are affected by
those decisions. I would certainly hope that in the future we
would hear input from those of you on this committee, from
governors, from local communities, before we take actions that
are going to deeply impact people's lives.
Chairman Bingaman. Would you advocate a repeal of the
Antiquities Act or some changes in that basic statute?
Ms. Norton. The Antiquities Act is something that has been
very useful in the past. It has shown its ability to preserve
some of our most important national monuments. I would like to
see a process of involvement of the people most affected by
decisions. That certainly would be the practice that would be
followed in a Bush administration if I am selected to be
Secretary of the Interior.
Whether that would require changes in that statute for the
long term is a decision that I have not made in terms of what
we would advocate and obviously would require congressional
action in order to make any of those changes.
Chairman Bingaman. On this issue of water rights, do you
agree that when the Federal Government reserves land from the
public domain that it also impliedly reserves a sufficient
quantity of water to fulfill the primary purposes of the land
that it has reserved, thereby creating a Federal reserved water
right?
Ms. Norton. The U.S. Supreme Court has established clear
standards for determining whether a Federal reserved water
right is established with any particular reservation, and it
depends on an examination of each particular area and the
purposes for that. What it boils down to at the core is the
intent of Congress and whether Congress intended when it set
aside some land or whether in a presidential proclamation
setting aside land the purpose of that proclamation, whether
the intent of Congress or the President was to create a
reserved water right. That is a decision that needs to be made
on a case by case evaluation for each particular reservation.
Chairman Bingaman. In the case of areas designated as
wilderness, do you have a general view as to whether a
reserved, implied Federal reserved water right is intended to
be created with the designation of an area as wilderness?
Ms. Norton. Obviously, it is important for us to preserve
wilderness areas and to be sure that those wilderness areas are
able to preserve the values that we want to see. One of the
issues that I will need to address as Secretary of the Interior
if I am confirmed is exactly that issue of water rights in
wilderness areas.
As you know, the Idaho Supreme Court recently held that
Congress did not intend to set aside water rights when it
created wilderness areas. So that decision will be coming up
for review. I will carefully study that and work with the
Department of Justice. Of course, it is their decision as to
what position the United States will take. I will work with
them to evaluate that case and determine what the course of
action should be following from that.
Chairman Bingaman. My time is up. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman.
Again, Ms. Norton, let me welcome you to the committee. I
was particularly pleased that you chose to mention the plight
of the American Indian reservation and the manner in which the
Department of the Interior has handled its responsibilities. I
would encourage you to evaluate the system within the
Department of the Interior, and recognizing that there is a
great deal of technology and expertise to be contracted for, as
opposed to trying to maintain a function that a trust
department or a notarized public accounting firm would guide
you into expert procedure for reporting back to the individual
Native tribes, because it is an unbelievable set of
circumstances.
I would also call your attention, as I indicated in my
opening statement, to the plight of some of our territories
that are going to require your attention. The Virgin Islands, I
hope, Chairman Bingaman, that we can take some of the members
down there and see the difficulty and the debt load that those
folks are under and their inability to have any realistic
relief other than the reality that we are going to have to
recognize some debt forgiveness and try and help them
restructure.
It is a tragedy that has been overlooked. The same is true
in American Samoa. I have been out there and these are
territories that we have simply ignored.
You are going to have to bring together, I think, in order
to develop a policy that the President-elect George W. Bush has
indicated relative to the energy situation in this country. We
have lacked a cohesive policy. We have lacked a direction, and
I think partially due to a management style. You know, you have
got the Department of the Interior that controls land, controls
access. Then you have got the Environmental Protection Agency
that is concerned, as they should be, with air quality and
environmental sensitivities. Then you have got, say, the
Department of Energy.
In many cases, the Secretaries have been going different
ways, as opposed to coming together and saying, all right,
within the administration we're going to have to address this
crisis. As we look at the hearing that we held this morning, a
good deal of discussion was on California and the fact that the
lights are about out, people are getting stuck in elevators,
traffic lights don't work, and revolving blackouts, which
suggests we're going to have to do something about the problem,
that somebody is going to have to make some decisions. That's
why I had mentioned a great deal of effort's going to have to
go into balancing this process.
Do you feel that you can bring together within this new
administration the wherewithal and the policymakers to resolve
and make some decisions about how we're going to relieve our
dependence on imports, 56 percent, going up to, we heard this
morning, 62 by the year 2004? Our greatest source seems to be
coming now from Saddam Hussein. We fought a war in 1992. We
lost 197 lives.
We cannot address what to do with our nuclear wastes. Oil
prices continue to go up. We're looking towards natural gas
now. We're using it faster than we're finding it.
You're going to have to come up with some of these answers
with your collective colleagues. How do you propose to do it?
Ms. Norton. The issues of Americans' being so dependent on
foreign oil is obviously a great cause for concern. The idea
that people in California this very day are facing serious
shortages of energy is another great cause of concern. We will
have to pull together all of our resources and work across
departmental lines to find ways of addressing those issues.
Obviously, it's going to be difficult to find short-term
answers. We'll have to do a lot of planning to be able to find
long-term answers. We would hope to work with you to find the
right kinds of solutions that would balance environmental
protection as well as finding ways of providing the kind of
energy resources that need to be available.
Senator Murkowski. I think it's appropriate that I bring up
the issue of ANWR because some would be disappointed if I
didn't. In any event, many members of our environmental
community have opposed your nomination because of the
President-elect's position on environmentally responsible oil
and gas exploration in that small portion of the Arctic coastal
plain in my State of Alaska. However, the reality is you nor
the President currently has the authority to open up this area.
Only Congress has that authority.
In this regard I have two questions for you. If Congress is
to undertake the debate on this issue, will you commit to aid
those debates with the very best science available from the
Department of the Interior?
Ms. Norton. Absolutely. I view the role of the Department
of the Interior as helping provide the information to this
Congress so that you can make an informed decision. We hope to
look at the issues of how we can provide the best scientific
evaluation of the environmental consequences, how we can do any
exploration and production, if it is done, in the absolute most
environmentally conscious way that we can have that happen.
Senator Murkowski. My second question is, if Congress
approves a measure to allow exploration and development of the
coastal plain and it becomes law, will you uphold the law
Congress passes and use all the powers afforded to you to
mitigate any potential negative environmental consequences?
Ms. Norton. I will certainly follow any laws that are
passed to be sure that the protection of the important
resources of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are preserved
at the same time that any exploration or production would take
place.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Now, moving over to Prudhoe Bay, which was discovered 30-
some-odd-years ago, in the search for oil in Prudhoe Bay, which
has been providing this Nation with about 20 percent of the
total domestic crude oil produced for some 27 years, and it is
falling off now as Prudhoe Bay declines. But not looking for
it, but as a sidelight, we found some 36 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas.
Nobody paid much attention to it because of the cost of
getting that gas out when gas was $2.16 per thousand cubic
feet, which is what it was a year ago. Now gas is $8.40 and, as
we look at our reserves and the fact that we're pulling down
our reserves, there is more and more thought given to marketing
that gas.
In order for this to become a reality, it's going to take a
transportation system and it's going to require an investment
of about $10 billion, the largest single construction project
that would be on the horizon and larger than anything that we
have undertaken in this country. Should the owners of the gas
decide to move forward with such a project, the Department of
the Interior, through the Joint Pipeline Office, will have an
awful lot to say about the permitting and development.
My question to you is, if confirmed, will you act in your
role as Secretary to provide all the resources needed to the
Joint Pipeline Office in Alaska to help expedite a project of
this magnitude if indeed it becomes a reality?
Ms. Norton. I'm aware of the important need for natural
gas, not just because our economy is expanding and there's more
demand for energy, but also because natural gas is seen as one
of the ways of having the cleanest supply of energy. So it's
important for us to have some mechanisms to be able to draw
upon gas resources. I will look forward to working with you to
learn more about that issue. It's not one that I have had the
opportunity, obviously, to discuss the details on. I will look
forward to working with you so that we can resolve that issue.
Senator Murkowski. February and March are a good time for a
visit to Prudhoe Bay because you can see it as it really is 9
months of the year.
My last appeal to you is, please come visit us in Glacier
Bay. Glacier Bay is the number two tourist destination in our
State. The number one is Denali National Park, both of which
are maintained by the Park Service. But there seems to be a
great reluctance on the Park Service to allow the entries of
passenger ships during the season, which is only 90 days of the
year, to allow 2 ships a day so that the visitors can see this,
and to suggest that the environmental damage would be any more
than an occasional cigarette butt that somebody might throw
over the side of a ship--it's pretty hard to make a case that
there's not a more compatible environmental way to see this
beautiful area than by cruise ship.
For the life of me, the Park Service just doesn't want to
let access in, and they have no good scientific justifiable
reason.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Gale Norton, welcome to the committee. As we hear the
public debate that occurs on this nomination, it occurs to me
that various groups describe two different Gale Nortons. One of
them is described as bright and charming, interesting, soft-
spoken, self-confident, reasonable, thoughtful, and moderate.
Another some describe a nominee who thinks on the political
fringes, favors polluters, cares little about the environment,
is unsympathetic to endangered species, and is a friend of both
lead paint and James Watt.
So the question is, who is Gale Norton? I don't know Gale
Norton except to have met you last week. We need to separate
the fact from the fiction in this debate. Saying that, I
recognize that these spotlights that shine on public lives
these days can sometimes offer almost perfect vision and other
times offer a pretty warped view of what is real.
So I'm going to ask you a series of questions about things
that have been said about you and things the you have said, and
I'd like to get some response. I kind of feel about the same
way as Senator Bingaman feels. I have not made a decision about
this nomination, but I do believe that Presidents have the
opportunity to send us their candidates and we have an
opportunity, of course, under the advise and consent
responsibility to ask questions.
You have a very distinguished record. You've done a lot of
things. I, too, am a graduate of the Graduate School of the
University of Denver and I'm pleased to hear that you were on
the faculty. Let me ask you some questions, and I'll try to do
a number of them quickly.
Global warming. You have written that there is little
consensus over whether global warming is occurring. Do you
think there's any kind of a scientific consensus at all that
there is some significant climate change occurring or global
warming occurring?
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
begin to reconcile the parts of my record and to have the
opportunity to explain myself so that perhaps the picture of me
that emerges at some point will be a little more clear.
Global warming is an issue that has seen scientific
information developing over time, and the further we go through
the process the more information we have available. The article
that you referred to is something that was written several
years ago. I will maintain an open mind and receive new
scientific information as it is put forward.
Senator Dorgan. But my question is do you think there's a
consensus on any side of this issue? Some would say, you know,
while there are doubters certainly, and some respected
doubters, there seems to be a fairly overwhelming consensus
among most scientists that something is occurring in the area
of global warming. Do you share that view?
Ms. Norton. It does seem, based on my evaluation, which is
not a scientific one, that there is beginning to be more of a
consensus that global warming is occurring. There is still
disagreement as to the causes and the long-term future.
Obviously, there is disagreement about what ought to be done in
that regard.
I will certainly rely on scientific information as it
becomes available and evaluate the information as it is
presented to me.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Let me ask you about the issue of the Fifth Amendment
Takings Clause and some of the comments that have been made
about your position on that. You have indicated that the
Government must pay compensation when its actions interfere
with private property rights, in an article you wrote or a
speech you gave. And you talked about the fact that it may even
extend to a property owner's right to pollute. Could you tell
us what you meant by that?
Ms. Norton. The issue of private property rights is
something that is important to me beginning from the time that
I worked with farmers and ranchers who feel very strongly about
the land that belongs to them, who care very much as stewards
for that land. I think it's important for government to be able
to work with the people who feel closest to land and to try to
find ways to reconcile with them, ways of protecting the
environment and allowing people to use their property.
In an article I once was talking about extreme examples of
environmental analysis and the analysis of takings laws. The
idea of a right to pollute is not something that I support.
That was actually a phrase that is taken from some work that I
did earlier on the concept of emissions trading. The idea of
emissions trading, of the ability to find economic incentive
ways of dealing with pollution, is something that early on was
called an emissions credit, a right to pollute. That is a
tradeable concept that has now been embodied in the Clean Air
Act and it has very widestream, very mainstream acceptance.
It is absolutely not clear from that article that that was
the way in which I was using that phrase and I recognize that.
I do not support the concept of a right to pollute, as many
people have tried to characterize that.
Senator Dorgan. I'll try to come back to that in a future
round. But let me just ask on the takings issue. You believe
that local governments have a right to be involved in zoning?
For example, if you have a home in Denver and I buy the lot
next door and put up a sheep barn and bring in 2,000 sheep, you
have a right to complain about that because that violates
zoning? Or, because they say I can't put up sheep or put up a
sheep barn and house some sheep next to your house, have they
taken something from me?
Ms. Norton. The concept of zoning and the way in which we
use our property are things that do require an evaluation of
property rights. I think it's certainly appropriate for a local
government to say you can't put a sheep ranch right next to a
residential community.
Senator Dorgan. And that is not a taking?
Ms. Norton. That is not a taking.
Going back to the ancient aspects of common law, there have
always been limits on using property. You cannot use property
in a way that harms the property of your neighbors, and that's
a concept I wholeheartedly agree with.
My view of property rights is, as it applies to the
Department of the Interior, what inspires me to want to find
ways of working cooperatively with landowners to have
incentive-based approaches, to encourage them to enhance
habitat on their property or to protect endangered species on
their property. I think we can find very cooperative ways of
working with farmers and ranchers and other landowners that are
based on recognition of the importance of property rights and
to tie that in with protection of the environment.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I'm just about out of time. I
want to just ask two very brief questions and you can perhaps
answer them at the same time. One is, do you support the
Endangered Species Act, what are your thoughts about that?
Second, can you just briefly describe your feeling about
States' rights overriding tribal self-government's rights with
respect to Indian nations?
Ms. Norton. I support the Endangered Species Act and the
preservation of endangered species. I've been privileged to
work on the protection of species like the California condor,
on the endangered fish species in the Colorado River. I think
we've seen some accomplishments there that hopefully will allow
those species to survive. So I do support that.
As to States' rights and tribal sovereignty, those are
complex legal questions. It boils down I think to the idea that
decisions of government are often best made when made closest
to the people who are affected by those decisions. What is true
for States is true for tribes. Self-government is very
important and I support that as a concept.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I'm out of time.
Thank you very much for your responses.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you.
Senator Domenici.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
First of all, let me say to you that I did not know that
you were also a Denver University graduate. I can say it that
way because I graduated from their law school a long time
before you ever got involved.
First I want to thank the three public officials who
testified in your behalf. I think each one of them contributed
in a very special way, the two Senators first, in kind of
shedding a positive, shedding a view of you that from my
standpoint I had already arrived at. I read most of the attacks
and allegations and then I read the reality of them, and I had
already concluded that President Bush wants you to be his
Secretary of the Interior and that you ought to have the job,
that you see more of what you feel and see and think about
public land issues in tune with his philosophy, and that's as
it should be. If as a matter of fact that does not suit every
single Senator, then they have prerogatives.
But to bring up ideas that would diminish the fact that you
can serve him well by doing what he thinks is the right thing
to me does not make any sense. I believe you're entitled to the
job.
I'd like to say, I read the newspapers that are associated
with your history. That would be the Rocky Mountain News and
the Denver Post. And I'm actually very pleased with both of
their editorials. I would say to anyone that thinks the
negative record that is being made here is the other side of
Gale Norton, that they ought to read these editorials.
I mean, they say in the first three paragraphs of each one
that you are competent, you're a wonderful legal scholar, you
bring people together, and while the environmentalist community
does not agree with you on everything, in many instances such
as the reserved water debate, that you are in tune with the
legal issues and that you have indeed been on the right side of
most of those issues, even if there are some who would not like
that view.
Now, I would say for the record, from this Senator's
standpoint, I read the Summitville mine issue in its entirety.
I believe you have done everything appropriate in that regard
and the State of Colorado's lucky to have you represent them in
that issue.
Now to the third person that testified in your behalf, let
me say to the distinguished Governor, who I've recently had an
opportunity to meet--everyone should know, I met him in the
campaign of George W. Bush, so there's no doubt about it. We
are right, on the same side. I think today, for those who are
thinking that there are two sides to this very, very scholarly
Attorney General, I think you have convinced me and you should
convince most Americans that you know her best and the side
that you have described as the positive side of her is the real
Gale Norton. I don't think there's any question about it. You
did a marvelous job and I thank you.
Madam soon-to-be Secretary, I would be very upset if you
didn't disagree with the Secretary of the Interior who is
leaving in some respects and on some issues. As a matter of
fact, if you choose to be as mellow about the way you feel
about some of his decisions, I might not vote for you. Who
knows. I mean, you ought to honestly tell us that many of the
things he has done and that he put on the books of this country
are not exactly what George Bush for President wants, but you
will comply with the law and hopefully you can make some
changes.
Changes in what? Changes in the endangered species law. Not
that it should be abolished, but we are so timid and so
frightened we won't even consider an amendment to it now when
even the administration and the Republicans agree, because
somebody is fearful that you shouldn't tinker with that law.
Well, it's not working very well.
You want to know about it, come down to my State and see
how the Bureau of Reclamation is about to determine that our
water is all Federally controlled because of an endangered
species. We aren't going to let that happen. We don't believe
the endangered species, in that case a minnow that's preserved
there, that we should let the Government run all of our water
up and down the Rio Grande, our only real water supply. And
we're not going to let that happen.
I'm very pleased this election occurred because I believe
you're not going to let it happen. When you see the equities of
that, you're going to work toward some habitat and cut out the
fighting that's been going on down there.
My last observation is, if you weren't willing to take some
new views on energy supply as it pertains to your properties,
the properties you will run for all of us, then I would not be
voting for you, because I believe we need some changes. We have
a detailed report on energy supply from the public domain. It
was issued only 2 months ago. I urge that you read it. It says
on properties that have been withdrawn there are 200 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas. It is worth looking at those in
light of our energy dilemma when we use 20 trillion a year.
That's 10 years supply. There ought to be a darn good reason
for locking it up when California's got their lights out today
and maybe tomorrow they won't have any industry left.
In conclusion, I assume you would be willing to be tasked
by the President to work on energy issues as you work on the
other issues and to look at those in light of your policy
decisions; is that correct?
Ms. Norton. Senator Domenici, I would be proud to work on
trying to solve those difficult problems.
Senator Domenici. My last one has to do with Indians. You
talked about what you might do and you left out one big thing,
so I would ask you to include it, because you talked about what
the President-elect said. He said to the Indian leaders in New
Mexico as a public statement that he would put $1 billion in
this year's budget for Indian public schools. I think you
should add that to your testimony, and since he said it I would
hope you would agree that you will support it.
Ms. Norton. I will strongly support that.
Senator Domenici. What we've got now is a school system
where the buildings are falling down, the Indian kids are in
buildings we would not have other than Indians in, and he wants
to get rid of the problem in 5 or 6 or 7 years. We've been
working on it for 5 or 6. I laud him for it and I think you
should support that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Norton, thank
you for the chance to have visited with you.
I believe the American people will vigorously resist
exploitation of public lands by private interests. I also
believe that they will not resist and in fact will welcome an
Interior Secretary with creative ideas for forging consensus,
both to protect our treasures and be sensitive to our economic
needs.
Anyone who believes it can't be done ought to just take a
look to my right--he likes to say he's always to my right--
where Senator Larry Craig sits. He and I worked together to
resolve one of the most contentious natural resource issues
last session dealing with timber harvests and payments to rural
counties. So, it is possible to find consensus on these issues.
I can tell you as a westerner, I share the view that one
size does not fit all. When you're trying to comply with
environmental law, what works in the Bronx may not necessarily
work in Pineville, Oregon. But you have to convince me in these
hearings that, as you provide flexibility to States and various
other parties, your bottom line will be unwavering: All Federal
environmental laws must be complied with, and you will have to
enforce them.
Finally, I will tell you I am concerned about the approach
that you have supported in the past with respect to self-
policing. Here again, it's a matter of degree. I like the idea
of having people come forward and take the initiative, but I'm
concerned in a number of cases like Summitville, where that
approach was allowed to go on for too long, and I hope that you
will take a different position.
Now, for purposes of my question I'd like to follow up on
what Senator Bingaman asked about in terms of enforcing the
law. You said categorically you would and we appreciate that.
But I have an article that I'd like to submit for the record
from the Denver Post, where, when you disagreed with the
affirmative action program in Colorado, they had to go out and
hire outside counsel to represent the State.
Now, I know absolutely nothing about the affirmative action
law in your State. I'm against quotas. Affirmative action can
certainly be improved. But would you do that again or have your
attitudes changed, because when you told Senator Bingaman you
would carry out the laws of the land as they are written and I
have in front of me the Governor having to go out and hire
outside counsel to carry out a State statute, that doesn't seem
to square.
Ms. Norton. Senator Wyden, I appreciate the opportunity to
respond to the questions that you have raised. Let me begin
with the last point, on affirmative action. As Governor Owens
described in his comments--and I thank him for his warm
comments toward me--the program in question was not a State
law. It was a program that was adopted on a discretionary
basis, and that program was later held to not comply with the
standards established by the Federal courts and so that program
was essentially thrown out by the courts.
As Attorney General it is my responsibility to advise the
agencies of State government and I provided that advice to
them. They felt that, and I concurred, that it would be
stronger for them to have someone else who had not provided the
advice that I did to them, and they went forward with a
different attorney and they were not successful. I think my
position on that was vindicated.
As to Summitville, I think there has been some
misconception that Summitville was an example of self-policing.
It was not. It was a situation that was a company that did not
comply with the laws that were in effect. My office took a very
vigorous role in trying to deal with the Summitville mine
situation.
When we heard that that company was going into bankruptcy
and had plans to just walk away and not operate the water
treatment system, that cyanide would be flowing down into the
river, we immediately stepped in to get a court order to
prevent that from happening. We worked in the bankruptcy court
to obtain as much as we could through that company's bankruptcy
to try to use that money for the cleanup process. We cooperated
with EPA, with the other State agencies, to try to have a
coordinated approach.
As a result of that coordinated approach, working with the
State and the Federal regulators, we have taken actions to deal
with what was a disastrous and awful situation.
Senator Wyden. I know you cooperated with the Federal
Government. But my concern is, when it was in your court, my
sense is you were slow to deal with the issue. For example, the
Denver Post on November 10, 1995 took you to task when they
said that the environmental task force, with which you worked
closely, was debating whether to extend the statute of limits
on environmental crimes. You ultimately decided not to press
the issue. They thought you should, rather than take it to the
Federal Government.
I guess my concern is, as with the answer on affirmative
action, I gather that there you felt you would lose, so you
wouldn't challenge the law, the law that is on the books. On
the Summitville question, I think there was an opportunity for
the State to have demonstrated leadership earlier on. These are
some of the philosophical questions that I think need to be
explored.
Now, in your comments to Senator Dorgan you touched on an
area that is very important to my constituents and that's the
Endangered Species Act. I happen to believe that we can protect
these species and be sensitive to local communities. You
challenged the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act
in an amicus brief that you filed in the Sweethome case. Now, I
would like to know whether you would no longer file that brief
today, given the opportunity to serve in this position, and
whether that's what you meant when you told Senator Dorgan you
supported the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act.
Ms. Norton. Let me first address an unfinished point as to
the Summitville matter, and that is that criminal prosecutions
did occur. My office worked with the Federal agencies. And yes,
we were frustrated by the fact that we had a short statute of
limitations. We felt that in that situation, working through
the environmental crimes task force that my office took the
initiative in establishing, that it was best for us to work
cooperatively with the Federal agencies.
That has resulted in, I believe, the strongest possible
action being taken against the operator of that mine. We have
recovered--just recently they've recovered millions and
millions of dollars against that operator, that will go into
the cleanup of that site.
As to the Endangered Species Act, I was involved in a piece
of litigation that dealt primarily with the interpretation of
the act and how that would be applied. The States of Arizona
and Colorado filed a brief in which we said that it should be
interpreted in one way. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that it
should be interpreted differently. I will certainly uphold the
position taken by the U.S. Supreme Court and will enforce the
Endangered Species Act.
Senator Wyden. I have a number of other questions, Mr.
Chairman, but the light is on. I appreciate it.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Gale, it is really an honor for all of us to have you
before this committee for your confirmation hearings. As the
crowd was gathering, I had never seen so many photographers in
my life. Now, as a politician I was extremely jealous. I mean,
I work at trying to get a crowd out like this and they never
come.
I couldn't imagine that that crowd had assembled for you.
Really, I thought they'd come to see Ben's new bike. If you
don't know, Ben's got a beautiful new bike that he's going to
have in the Inaugural Parade the day after tomorrow, and it is
a gorgeous sight to behold, I am told. I was quite confident
that's why all of you photographers had assembled.
Not the case. The case was that you had been promoted in a
way that just does not meet the standards of the record. And it
is exciting for me not only to hear your Governor, but your
colleagues, your two Senators, begin to set that record
straight, and we have heard repeatedly again here today that
somehow what has been said about you over the last good number
of days, when literally the Senate has placed a gag order on
you and your colleagues, simply doesn't seem to match.
So it's always fun, exciting, and appropriate that we have
you here to speak in your own words, as you are doing so well
at this moment, on these kinds of issues.
My colleague from Oregon Ron Wyden mentioned the success
that he and I had recently on a piece of legislation that dealt
with public lands and communities of interest that had been
dramatically depleted of their resources for schools and
counties and roads and bridges over the last decade because we
have reduced logging on our national forests by over 80
percent.
Now, having said that, I am not going to suggest that you
come and return to that. But what I am of the belief, and
you've mentioned it at least three times in your statements,
and I've kept track, you've used the word ``collaborative.''
That is an exciting new term that the national preservationists
shudder at. Ron Wyden and I implemented it for local
communities to begin to work together with all of the
stakeholders of interest at those local community levels to
resolve the current crisis in the relationship between
economies and local communities and the public lands around
them.
The reason the national preservationists don't like that
term and the reason the photographers have assembled today and
the reason the word has gone out about you is that they are
losing their top-down authority to control the way decisions
are made without public participation, without the
collaborative process. Most importantly, without this community
or this committee of jurisdiction.
I find it interesting, Gale, that your predecessor who is
soon to be leaving his office treated this authorizing
committee in this way. He said: ``It is a highly partisan
debating society, staffed by munchkins that wrangle a lot.''
Now, I know that aggravated the ``h'' out of me, and my guess
is if you continued to treat us like your predecessor has it
would begin to aggravate the heck out of my colleagues on the
other side.
You see, collaboration not only is important for local
communities of interest today, it is extremely important for
all of us, working with you, to arrive under the law at the way
we resolve these public land disputes when they occur, but,
most importantly, to establish long-term policy that impacts
our States and these valuable lands and the treasures upon
them.
As you know, yesterday the President again in great pride
and gesture announced new monuments. Let me tell you briefly
the story of one that occurred in Idaho in the last few weeks.
It is to recognize internment camps where Japanese Americans
were held during World War II. It was a time in our Nation's
history we will not repeat and we are embarrassed about. And
that area, an internment camp in Jerome County, south central
Idaho, should be recognized. I agree and the whole of the
delegation and our Governor agree.
Herein lies the problem. And as I describe it to you, you
will know all so well why I had to publicly oppose the
designation--not the intent, not the purpose, and not the
value. We were told it was going to happen, some 70,000 acres
of land set aside for the designation. I said to the gentlemen
at Interior and Council of Environmental Quality: Do you
realize that within your area there is an irrigation canal and
a right of way for that canal for the Minidoka Irrigation
District? Do you realize there is also a road right of way and
that you're creating a new level of bureaucracy and a whole new
relationship that this irrigation district and road right of
way, county in this instance, will have to establish with the
National Park Service? If you move your lines a little bit and
you adjust a little bit, you can still have the purpose, but
you avoid the conflict.
Their answer was basically they didn't care. They wouldn't
hold a public hearing. They wouldn't listen to the public. They
wouldn't incorporate the interests of the broader area to
adjust the boundaries to avoid the conflict. They seemed to be
an awful lot interested in politics and not very interested in
local involvement, in collaboration, and, if you will, a rather
democratic process.
So it is exciting to me that you would use the word
``collaborative.'' Oh, it's inflammatory, because it suggests
that all of us ought to be involved in decisionmaking on the
resources of our public lands.
I find it also interesting that you're being attacked over
States' rights and Tenth Amendment issues. We are not a
democracy. We are a representative republic. We are a union of
States, and we are still that even though some would like to
deny that. This means that States should and must have equal
standing when it comes to deliberations that involve them,
their resources, and their people. Somehow over the last 8
years we've just forgotten all about that, or at least some
have who preside within the Beltway of this city.
You and I may differ a little bit on States' rights, but I
think we understand the relationships, the value of States and
governors and our responsibility to them, but also our
responsibility to the Nation and to the resources involved.
I look forward to working with you. I think you will be
confirmed by a large and substantial vote of the U.S. Senate,
because the billing that you're getting isn't holding up. The
record will set you free, because it is an outstanding record
of service to the public, service to the resources and to the
environment that we all love.
I thank you for your willingness to commit yourself to what
you have committed to for the next 4 years and I am confident
that we will have a collaborative working relationship that
involves both Democrats and Republicans, that we will not see
king-like actions being dictated to us by a Bush
administration, recognizing that all of us ought to have a
piece of the action. That's the way our country works in a
republic through a democratic process.
Thank you for being with us.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Graham.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM, U.S. SENATOR
FROM FLORIDA
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Ms.
Norton.
I would like to talk some about the issue that Senator
Craig has just explored, and that is collaboration. My
particular interest is your views on the role of the States and
the Federal Government and particularly the Department that you
have been nominated to head in the management of natural
resources which are either within that State or adjacent to
that State. Could you give us some general statement of your
philosophy as to what should be the role of the States in
determining uses of natural resources that are in properties
owned by the Federal Government, but either within or adjacent
to those States?
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Senator Graham. The very difficult
issues of trying to manage public lands are best illuminated by
the information that comes from the people who know those lands
the best. The Federal Government obviously has control of its
lands and constitutionally it is the Federal Government that
makes the decision about those lands, and there is no mistake
that it is Congress and the Federal Government that have
control over those issues.
We ought to have, though, a cooperative working
relationship with the States. When decisions are made in a way
that involves the States, those I think are the best decisions
in the long run.
A few years ago I worked with Senator Hank Brown, when he
was in your midst, on the issue of wilderness areas in the
State of Colorado. As State Attorney General, I worked with him
in trying to deal with some of the water issues that came from
the designation of that wilderness area. We worked with
environmental groups and local governments, trying to find the
best way of handling those issues that was really tailored to
what we needed in Colorado to be able to preserve our
wilderness.
What you need in Florida is obviously different than what
we needed in Colorado. There are no ``one size fits all''
solutions. So I would hope to work with the States to be able
to find the things that would best fit each State.
Senator Graham. Well, I am pleased at that response. The
particular issue or application of that issue that I am
concerned with is the use of the Outer Continental Shelf which
is adjacent to our State. For 20 years through Republican and
Democratic administrations here and in Tallahassee, if there
has been one issue which has united our State, it is an
appreciation for the potential vulnerability of both our
environment and our economy to oil and gas development in the
Outer Continental Shelf. For approximately 20 years, the
Congress has repeatedly passed a series of moratoriums against
any additional grant of leases in that, off the coast of
Florida.
I was concerned when I saw an item issued by the National
Ocean Industries Association urging the Minerals Management
Service to include offshore moratoria regions in the agency's
next 5-year Outer Continental Shelf leasing program. Could you
comment as to what you feel should be the significance of a
State's determination in opposition to further Outer
Continental Shelf leasing in areas adjacent to that State?
Ms. Norton. Consistent with the idea of trying to take into
account the wishes of local communities, President-elect Bush
has made clear that he supports continuing the moratoria on
offshore leasing as to California and as to Florida, where the
States have opposed that offshore activity. There are, as you
know, some areas that are not covered by that because the
process has already taken place, and those issues will need to
be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Senator Graham. Would you believe that other States such as
North Carolina, which has taken a similar position, would be
accorded the same treatment that California and Florida would
be accorded?
Ms. Norton. We would work with the officials from those
States to try to reach an appropriate solution.
Senator Graham. During the administration of the first
President George Bush, there was not only the continuation of
moratorium on existing leases, but a buy-back program for
leases, particularly in the area of the Florida Keys. Would you
support an expansion of that lease repurchase program to other
areas adjacent to States which have taken a position similar to
Florida's?
Ms. Norton. That, Senator, if an issue that I will have to
explore more and learn more about as I move into the position
of Secretary if I am confirmed. I will be happy to work with
this committee and with you to try to resolve that issue.
Senator Graham. I would hope that early on in your
administration that we would have the opportunity to sit down
and develop a plan that would be acceptable to the
administration and to the States affected for that purpose of
eliminating the threat that is represented by leases, many of
which are many years old, to the environment and economy of
those States.
There is an immediate issue now and that is a proposal for
the grant of a drilling permit on one of those leases in the
vicinity of Pensacola, Florida. Would you plan to work with my
State and other States that might be subject to such a
potential drilling to assure that the wishes of the State are
fulfilled?
Ms. Norton. Yes, Senator Graham, I would be quite
interested in working with those States and in learning more
information about that issue so that we can make a good
decision.
Senator Graham. When we met in my office we talked about
some of your principles as they relate to private property
rights and I tried to suggest a few hypothetical cases in order
to elucidate how those principles might apply in a reality
case. If I could suggest another of those hypotheticals, assume
that the unfortunate situation should occur that a drilling
permit were to be granted for one of these currently
outstanding leases. The effect of doing so would have an
adverse effect on the value of private property adjacent to
where those wells might be drilled. It would also have an
adverse effect on commercial activity, such as hotels and
motels.
Would you support Federal compensation for commercial and
private owners who experienced a reduction in the value of
their property as a result of the Federal Government first
granting the leases and then granting the drilling permits to
utilize those leases?
Ms. Norton. Senator, it is important to recognize the
impact of any Federal action on the people who are affected by
it. There are legal standards for determining when compensation
is appropriate. That kind of situation is probably not the sort
of situation where direct compensation is ordinarily paid under
the court system.
The issue of compensation is usually a legal issue that
depends upon the statutes and the court analysis. We also need
to bear in mind that sometimes ways of trying to compensate
people, whether that is direct compensation or whether it is
ways of trying to mitigate the harms that are caused by an
action, are also things that ought to be taken into account
from a policy perspective in trying to be sure that when we
have a benefit to society the burdens of that are appropriately
and fairly spread across other people within society.
To the extent that there are impacts upon people who are
affected by a government program, whether it is people in
Florida in the kind of situation that you describe, of whether
it is people in the West who are affected by government
decisions about Federal lands, those are things we ought to
take into account and we ought to look at the whole range of
different ways of trying to make sure that everyone is as
satisfied as we can have with the decisions that are made.
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I would like
in the next round to come back and pursue this a little
further.
Chairman Bingaman. Very good.
Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gale, have you read the papers lately and read some of the
paid-for advertisements that have been put in the paper about
you, about how bad you are?
Ms. Norton. I've seen a few of those, unfortunately.
Senator Campbell. Hurt your feelings?
Ms. Norton. Well, I have to say it doesn't hurt my feelings
that much because it doesn't sound like me.
Senator Campbell. It doesn't sound like you to me, either.
But I have to tell you, as one who was in that pool for
Interior for a while, am I glad you got it. My wife's
particularly glad you got it. I am seriously glad because I
know you could do a better job than I could anyway.
My colleagues have talked about a lot of things. I wanted
to focus just a little bit on Indian issues since I'm the
chairman of that committee, and one in particular that you're
familiar with and you've worked on yourself for years and
years, the so-called Animas-La Plata. Years ago when Secretary,
the last Secretary, came in for his confirmation, he made a
commitment that he would do everything he could to get that
built. But unfortunately, because the environmental community
did sue under the Endangered Species Act, everybody over there
in Interior went kind of limp and lost their spine and decided
not to pursue it, and so we had to redo the whole thing.
Senator Bingaman, Senator Allard and I and Senator
Domenici, the four of us worked hard on this revised bill that
you're now familiar with, that the President recently signed as
part of the omnibus package.
I just wanted to get your commitment that you're going to
do the best you can to get that thing built. As you know, in
1988 when we first passed it it was supposed to be built by the
year 2000, and if we did not the tribes would have the
opportunity to go back and pursue a lawsuit against the Federal
Government. They signed off on the lawsuit. We actually paid
them to give up that lawsuit on condition we build it. We paid
them and the thing wasn't built.
Well, under this new bill now we're off in a whole new
direction and hopefully we'll get it built. We wrote the bill
as tight as we could, but there's no doubt in my mind the
environmental community do not want any kind of compromise or
consensus. They want to kill that project, end of story. They
want to kill that project. They're already talking about going
back to court and saying that the Justice Department wasn't
involved in the discussions and a whole bunch of other things
to try to stop it in the courts again.
I would hope in your tenure that we'd have a little more
courage over there and not just simply knuckle under at the
first threat of the environmental community going back to sue
to stop that project again. It's the right thing to do. The
States of Colorado and New Mexico have collectively spent over
$50 million on building water projects, pipelines, as their
part of the agreement. We have given the tribes over $57
million. In fact, there'll be $10 more million under this bill
that goes to them as part of the agreement to get them to
relinquish some of their rights.
We know, those of us who worked on it, it's the right thing
to do. But we have not been able to get the past administration
to show some courage and get that thing built. I would hope
that you would do that.
Ms. Norton. Senator, as you well know, the history of
Animas-La Plata reflects so much of the tragic history that
American tribes have faced in the past. There was a settlement
reached. It was approved by Congress, and yet that settlement
was completely disregarded when it came time to really carry
through.
As the Attorney General of Colorado, I looked at that from
the issue of the water rights for the tribes and warned that we
would be back in litigation that would go on for decades if we
did not keep some of the commitments that had been made to the
tribes. I support the efforts that you have engaged in. I
personally participated in meetings that had the attendance of
the number of people here today, who were concerned about
Animas-La Plata and about trying to reach further resolution of
the issues in a way that would carry forward the commitment to
the tribes.
I look forward to working with you to be sure that we can
follow through now that Congress has reached a resolution.
Senator Campbell. Well, we detailed in some depth in this
bill all of the environmental things that we've complied with.
In fact, we've complied with everything that we had to from the
Federal level. So that will be in your corner if you have to
end up in court defending the thing.
Let me also mention that Senator Domenici talked a little
bit about the President's commitment to Indian school
construction. I was with him when the President made that
commitment in Las Cruces in front of 13 tribal chairman. He did
commit $920 million to $1 billion the first year that he's in
office. Senator Dorgan has taken the lead many times around
this place in committee and on the floor, too, talking about
just the horrendous conditions of Indian schools, where
children are expected to learn with broken windows and drafty
walls and just unbelievably unsanitary and dangerous
conditions. They can't learn in conditions like that. It's as
simple as that, they can't.
I'm just very pleased that the President-elect has made a
commitment to doing something about that construction. But that
construction will come through your Department and so I just
wanted to alert you to that. I would hope you would support
that, too.
Ms. Norton. That has my wholehearted personal commitment.
Senator Campbell. Thank you.
Last, Senator Murkowski and I spent a good number of hours
and in fact even introduced a bill to try to straighten out
this mess with the trust assets that you're aware of, this
missing $2.5 billion that I mentioned in my opening statement.
The administration opposed that bill and we couldn't get the
thing moving because they think for some reason they have the
expertise to be able to do it.
But just yesterday in the Denver Post there was another
article, another story about how they are not straightening it
up. It is still a mess. I mean, they've got, they estimate,
over 100,000 missing documents, they've got documents stored in
trash bags and old cardboard boxes full of rat feces in
warehouses in New Mexico and around the country. I just am
still not sure that they're going to be able to straighten it
up in house.
But I would hope you would also make that a priority and
work with Senator Murkowski and Senator Bingaman and I, who are
all very concerned about that.
Ms. Norton. It's alarming to hear that we have such large
amounts of money that ought to belong to the Indian people
themselves that has become lost somewhere in the bureaucracy of
the Department of the Interior, and I will do what I can to
work to straighten that out. I will work with this committee to
try to find the best way to resolve that so that we can see
that it's all straightened out at some point in the future.
Senator Campbell. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Bayh.
STATEMENT OF HON. EVAN BAYH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM INDIANA
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Norton, thank you for being with us. I want to express
my appreciation for the courtesy you paid me of coming to visit
and acknowledge that we have several friends in common whom I
have a great deal of respect for, including the former attorney
general of our State, who I happen to be having dinner with
tonight, so maybe I'll continue my queries with him this
evening over dinner.
Let me just give you my framework that I would ordinarily
apply for hearings like this and making decisions on
confirmations like this. I customarily would feel that the
President is entitled to a great deal of deference in choosing
members of his Cabinet, for a couple of reasons. First, that I,
in most circumstances, would express support for the willing of
the American people as demonstrated by at least a plurality in
the recent election; and secondly, because the remedy for
public policy disputes is almost always, or almost always
should be, take it to the next election. If you have a
difference of opinion, take it to the voters, let them decide.
There'd be a caveat for that, though, when it would come to
examples of public policy that might have long-lasting
consequences, not susceptible of being remedied in the next
election, or any time soon. So just to give you sort of the
parameters of my thinking, it would be: Short-run policy
differences, take it to the next election; long-term
consequences for policy changes not susceptible to remedy any
time soon, maybe not quite as much deference in those sorts of
cases.
So with that as a background, I'd like to start by asking
you some questions of broad policy or philosophy and then get
to a couple of specific examples. I'm going to start by--Ben
had to leave, but I think he and Governor Owens and several
others alluded to some of the ads that have been run and to
some of the characterizations comparing you to Mr. Watt and
that kind of thing. Those sorts of things, I want to make
clear, are unfortunate. From our personal interaction, I can
tell you're a person with a very pleasant demeanor and a
conciliating manner, which I think is good. I don't know Mr.
Watt, so I can't speak to him, but some people have said
there's a stylistic difference.
My concern is more of a substantive nature. Based upon his
actions when he headed this Department, or some of the
positions he has taken publicly or in the institute that he
helped to found, can you give us an example of an important
public policy with which you disagree with Mr. Watt?
Ms. Norton. Senator, that is difficult for me in a respect
that you might find surprising, and that is I don't know
everything that Jim Watt thinks about issues. I have only
really spoken with him once in the last 10 years. I am not in
constant communication with him and discussion of policy
issues.
I think we might have issues in common, but in the 20 years
since I worked at Mountain States Legal Foundation at the same
time Jim Watt did I've had a lot of different experiences. My
experiences at Mountain States Legal Foundation were in
defending some wonderful people of the West, defending ranchers
and farmers and small business people who were very earnest
about the things that they did and who in good faith really
felt strongly about their land and their ability to make
decisions.
Since that time, I've also had the opportunity as Attorney
General to deal with people who did not have that kind of a
regard, to deal with people who thumbed their noses at the
environmental laws, who flagrantly violated those laws. Those
people, some of them are spending time in prison because of our
prosecution of them. We recovered tens of millions of dollars
in fines and penalties against those who violated Colorado's
laws.
I think the reality of who I am is different from the
characterization of who Jim Watt is. I mean him no disrespect,
but I am my own person.
Senator Bayh. Thank you. I think you know that some have
raised questions and want to draw analogies between you and Mr.
Watt because of your association long ago, and you can
understand why they would--I think you answered my question
sufficiently and I appreciate that, but I think you can
understand why they would be looking for perhaps some specifics
to say, look, I wouldn't be like him, or the philosophy in some
particular respects. I recommend that to you.
Secondly, again from a broader philosophical term, you've
been an eloquent spokesperson for the rights of individuals, of
States, of businesses. As a former governor, certainly the
interests of States certainly resonates with me. You've
expressed some doubt about some different Federal statutes--the
Endangered Species Act, the Surface Mining Act, the Clean Air
Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act. My question would be
that if there is not a compelling national interest in these
cases, when would you find--when is there a compelling national
interest in protecting the American people in these or other
areas? Philosophically speaking, when should the national
interest be predominant?
Ms. Norton. As an attorney who has dealt with
constitutional issues and dealt with those issues from the
perspective of a State Attorney General and as someone who has
represented other States as an attorney, I look at the ways in
which laws are structured. Because I might disagree with the
way in which the law is structured and the kinds of mandates it
puts onto a State, I don't necessarily disagree with the goals
of those laws.
I support the Endangered Species goals of preserving and
protecting endangered species. I think that mining operations
ought to be reclaimed, as the Surface Mining Reclamation Act
requires. I think that we ought to provide opportunities for
people with disabilities. In fact, the second law review
article I ever wrote was about providing access to mass
transportation for those with handicaps.
There are many things where we may disagree about the ways
in which laws are structured, where the States might like to
see more control in their own ability to make decisions and the
Federal Government might like to see more control lodged with
it. But there is a broad national consensus behind those laws
and that should not dissuade us from pursuing the goals of
those laws.
Senator Bayh. Your concern was not that there was not a
legitimate national interest or even that national legislation
was inappropriate; it was simply in the specifics, the details
of the different acts?
Ms. Norton. There are oftentimes ways in which the Federal
Government can reach the same result in two different ways and
one of those results can impact very heavily on the States and
cause problems for States in being able to implement it, while
another way of reaching that same end point is one that allows
the States and the Federal Government to work cooperatively
together. I've tried to work for those areas where that kind of
cooperation can take place.
Senator Bayh. Thank you.
Is there a light on? I don't want to go on and on over my
time here, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. You have 13 seconds.
Senator Bayh. 13 seconds. Ah, well. I can't do more in that
amount of time, Ms. Norton, than thank you again and say that
perhaps in a round of questioning tomorrow--and I apologize for
having to slip out. We've got multiple balls we're trying to
keep in the air around here.
But I noted that Senator Graham was asking about some
aspect of takings and I'm interested in some of your thoughts
about that. Perhaps we can pursue that in the next round of
questioning. But again, I appreciate your presence here today
and your visit and your willingness to address our questions.
Thank you.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Thomas.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's interesting--welcome, Gale. It is nice to have you
here. It's interesting how sometimes you're asked to
differentiate yourself from Mountain States, but seldom do we
ask others to differentiate themselves from the League of
Conservation Voters. It would be something we probably ought to
try.
I agree with my friend from New Mexico that we need to take
some different approaches to resolving the problems that are
involved in resource management. Taking a different approach
than the previous Secretary in solving these problems, however,
doesn't preclude concern for our natural resources, and I think
that's what you've said.
The last 8 years, this previous administration, the
relationship between the agency and people in the West has been
pretty marked by distrust and I think we need to change that.
It's time, I believe, for a new chapter in the Department of
the Interior which reflects cooperation as we search for
conservation goals and public access, which I think is one of
the things.
I'm particularly interested, as you know, in parks. In our
last budget, the administration put more emphasis and more
dollars into acquisition than they did on maintenance, and yet
we talk a lot about backlogs, which are real, and we need to do
something about that. Would you support a plan and the
management necessary to carry out a plan to maintain the
current needs and pick up on those needs in order to safeguard
our parks?
Ms. Norton. Senator Thomas, I was very surprised to learn
that, despite the fact that we have an almost $5 billion
backlog in maintenance and care for our national parks, the
outgoing administration cut back on the budget for maintenance
of our parks. I think it's very important and President-elect
Bush has made clear that it is very important to him that we
adequately maintain our national treasures.
Senator Thomas. I certainly agree.
One of the issues, of course, in States that are 50, 60
percent owned by the Federal Government is the question of
multiple use. Very important. We've talked about it generally.
How would you sort of intend to guide the Park Service and
Bureau of Land Management with regard to access and multiple
use of those resources?
Ms. Norton. I value the preservation of our lands and I
value the ability of people to use those lands in an
appropriate way, and I recognize that where we come from in the
West often the only way to effectively live people's lives is
to have access to the public lands. When vast portions of many
of our States are owned by the Federal Government, the ability
to have access to those Federal lands is very important. I will
work to be sure that, again, those local issues are resolved
with an eye toward what makes sense on a local basis, trying to
figure out those things on a collaborative basis that are going
to work best in each of those States.
Senator Thomas. I can't resist a follow-up on an issue
that's now involved in Yellowstone and Teton with respect to
snow machines in the winter. I don't think anyone suggests that
we continue to do what's been done in terms of the machines, in
terms of the noise, in terms of exhaust. But in fact, rather
than to seek to find clean machines, to change the management,
why, the Department has just wanted to terminate that kind of
access.
What would you think about taking a look at seeing if it
couldn't be changed so that access and preservation of the
resources couldn't go together?
Ms. Norton. I've been out cross-country skiing in the quiet
of a snowy day in the forest and had snowmobiles go by, and I
know that people can be disturbed by that. And I also know that
wildlife can be disturbed by snowmobiles. But I'm hopeful there
are ways that we can reconcile those issues. I would look
forward to working with you to see if there are avenues of
trying to allow us to use our resources so that all of that can
be satisfied.
Senator Thomas. There's an interesting--and the process is
more the issue, Jackmar Hills in Wyoming. They studied for
about 3 years in terms of an EIS and the NEPA to figure out how
to handle it. They came up after all the public input and so on
with some plans, and then the Secretary arrived, took a look at
it, and suggested a different plan and they discarded all
that's been done.
Now, this is pretty destructive to the NEPA process and to
the EIS process. Do you think that's an appropriate way to deal
with those kinds of issues?
Ms. Norton. Obviously, I'm not familiar with the details of
that particular situation, but we would hope to use correctly
the processes that call for scientific study and public input
to reach the right kind of well thought out result.
Senator Thomas. We've dealt again in the endangered species
for 10 years at least on delisting grizzly bears, and all the
scientists have indicated that there's indeed numbers that
exceed what the plan was. The difficulty, of course, is
designing some sort of rules on habitat. In any event, it's
gone on forever. I've suggested and will probably introduce
again the proposition where when you list an endangered species
you also have to have a plan for recovery, so that there is
some effort, which is the purpose of endangered species, is to
find recovery, but it just goes on and on.
What's your reaction to that?
Ms. Norton. I would look forward to working with you to
study that issue in more detail.
Senator Thomas. Well, it's a tough one.
I'm sharing all our little problems with you. Wild horses.
It's pretty clear when you have any critters out on a range of
some kind there's a limit to how much grazing there can be and
how many units can be there. But of course, in years past, why,
they starved to death or whatever, which we don't want them to
do now. We haven't seemed to be able to come up, despite a
lawsuit, which was in favor of doing some limitation, to
finding a solution.
It just seems like we need to commit ourselves to coming up
with an answer and getting the question resolved. I don't know
that I expect an answer, but I do want to share that situation
with you and hope you'll take a look at it.
I'm excited about your opportunity to be Interior Secretary
and certainly am delighted that you're here, and thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Norton, welcome
to this committee.
In 2002, one of the loveliest places in the State of Oregon
is going to celebrate a hundredth anniversary. It is the Crater
Lake National Park. Can you commit to me today that we will
have an appropriate celebration, that Ron Wyden and I will be
invited?
Ms. Norton. I would be happy to see Senator Wyden and you,
Senator Smith.
Senator Thomas. Be careful of that.
Senator Smith. Gale, I appreciated the chance to visit with
you the other day, and I think I mentioned to you my hope that
you would find a way to enforce our environmental laws, to keep
an environmental stewardship, but that you would remember a
human stewardship that we have as well. I commend to you a
model that the Oregon delegation, Republican and Democrat
alike, pursued with Bruce Babbitt, that separated our State
from, as far as I know, all the others in terms of national
monuments that have been designated.
We found a way to create 170,000 acres of wilderness in the
High Steens and we did it without destroying the economy of
Harney County. We respected the heritage of the people that was
there, that are there. I think it's a credit to the joint goal
that we ought to have of leaving the environment better, but
remembering that people count in the environment as well.
I could go over tons of local issues, like the Umatilla
Project, where we exchange water to leave water in rivers. So
many creative things can be done if we just work together
instead of yell at each other. The Oregon salmon plan, our
governor developed that with a Republican legislature. It has
not had any standing in the environmental community because
it's not driven by Washington, D.C.
A lot of things can work if we'll start working together. I
hope you'll bring that spirit to this job. I have reason to
believe you will.
I'm going to submit a written question to you about fiber
optic facilities on public land and I hope you'll give us a
response on that. It will require a more detailed answer than
you're probably able to do now, but it matters a great deal to
fiber optics spreading throughout the West and how the BLM and
the Forest Service respond to those.
But I'd like to quote in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, a person
that I know as more than just a Democrat, a person I know as
something different than just a committed environmentalist, a
person that I know as more than just a Coloradan. His name is
Representative Mark Udall. I know him as a cousin. My mother is
Jessica Udall.
Mark Udall said: ``She is articulate, highly intelligent,
and hard-working. She is certainly knowledgeable about natural
resource law and is regarded as someone who can work
effectively in a bipartisan way.''
If it's good enough for Mark, it's good enough for this
Udall. And I hope my colleagues will vote for you in a
bipartisan way.
I noted with interest this rag with half of your face on it
and I thought back to my own political experience in seeing
things like this. I even saw one about my colleague Senator
Wyden because he did a bill with Representative Craig by some
of these same outfits. I've got to tell you, it's not helpful,
because it isn't true. This is at best full of half-truths and
in fact I believe it is a gross defamation of a public servant.
I look forward to casting an enthusiastic vote for you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you.
Senator Burns.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gale, thank you for stepping forward and doing this,
because public service is very good service and you've chosen
to do it in a very difficult area, in a time of need where we
have the reevaluate some things that are happening with our
natural resources.
It seems as though the last administration, they did not
manage resources, and it seems like their policies
intentionally set up areas where there would be conflicts, and
so they managed conflicts. I like your approach much better,
that we manage our resources and we also do it at the local
level.
I was interested in the remarks of my friend from Oregon
Senator Smith because he is coming on the Commerce Committee
and I chair communications. I've always held that just because
a kid is born in Rifle, Colorado, or Jordan, Montana, or
Embler, Oregon, remote as those areas are, those kids deserve
the benefit of distance learning and the same educational
opportunities as those who were born in more urban areas and
have a broader spectrum of curriculum.
We have been denied--and when you hit the word ``access''
that is key because of not only the siting of towers for
wireless broadband access to the Internet or ability to
interact in distance education with our learning centers, like
in his case Oregon, Oregon State, and our University of Montana
and Montana State, and other, Rocky Mountain College and MSUB,
but to access, to actually use those lands as a connector of
communities.
I think that's what we're all about, is bringing
communities together, not only under the guise of education,
but also how we interact on environmental problems, how we
deliver and manage health care for our elderly that live in
those remote areas, because we know that is changing every day.
Telemedicine is a real part of the fabric of each one of us in
our small communities.
So I am very, very excited about your approach to those
kind of issues and how they serve rural America. I am not
blessed with a great urban area in the State of Montana. I said
this morning I represent a State that has a great deal of dirt
between light bulbs, and we have to deal with that. If you look
from Eureka, Montana, to Alzeta, Montana, it is further than it
is as the crow flies from Chicago to Washington, D.C.
And those people deserve all the benefits that this free
land offers and they should have them, and through that is
through this thing of communications. I've always been on the
Commerce Committee. I've worked in this area of communications
and distance learning and telemedicine and those areas of
hooking communities together to where we can solve problems and
those areas.
So I welcome your approach. I too have fallen victim to the
Antiquities Act. I'm sure that we can work together on some of
this area because it has taken in some areas which I think is
very sensitive to those people that live in that area.
Everybody in Washington, D.C.--and I regard this place as 17
square miles of logic-free environment. But we are hammered by
groups that do not believe that the people that live along the
Missouri River or in eastern Montana or western Dakotas have
faces. What about their next generation? What about their kids
and their kids and their grandkids?
What about our Native Americans that are on our
reservations, that we can't even build schools for and build
water systems? I've been very lucky. I've got two big water
systems going in on the Rocky Boy and the Fort Peck. The basic
thing of water.
Gale, your approach--it was mentioned a while ago about
water. How many of us have created a vision of what will this
country look like in 2015, 2020, 2030, and our demand for fresh
water, and where will we get it? Water management, as in
spectrum management, as in management of hooking together
communities. I think that's part of our responsibility here, is
to be a part of a vision. It doesn't hurt to stop and dream a
little bit and to think where we want to be in 20 years, and I
think you've thought that out.
I thank you for your visit. I thank you for your visit with
our group down there. We're just a rogue group, but nonetheless
we appreciate your commitment to what we think are the values
that I think all Americans embrace. So I appreciate.
The national parks, we are behind. Glacier and Yellowstone
and the area in between is one of our greatest resources in the
State of Montana. We want to maintain that as we build the
Going to the Sun Highway and we do some things on
infrastructure that allows people to enjoy that tremendous view
and tremendous uplifting of American values that's represented
in the grandeur of those two parks.
So we really appreciate you. I was taken by Senator Graham,
who wanted to make sure that you wanted to honor the moratorium
of no offshore drilling as far as the State of Florida was
concerned. And I'm sure that the Senator from California is
also concerned about the same thing. I would also ask them if
they would support us if my State wants access for exploration
and management of our natural resources. We want access. So
ours is another request. If we honor theirs, will they honor
ours? I think that's a logical question.
Thanks again for coming and I'm going to support you
wholeheartedly and I look forward to working with your
Department and working with Ben Campbell, and we've done some
great things for the reservations. We've got water settlements
to do and we must do that, and deal in the area of jurisdiction
to make sure that every people, all the people who live on
reservations, are represented evenly and fairly.
Thank you for coming. If you want to respond to that, I
don't know. You may.
Ms. Norton. I think I will let your statement speak for
itself and thank you very much.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Burns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Conrad Burns, U.S. Senator From Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address the
Committee this afternoon. I welcome Ms. Norton to this hearing and
thank her for giving us the opportunity to engage in this discussion
today. After meeting with Ms. Norton, I am impressed with her
intellect, her good ideas, and most importantly, her willingness to
listen. That is a quality we can always use more of in this city.
There is no doubt that today we will hear a lot of different
opinions on the role of the Secretary of the Interior, and on the
appropriate uses of public lands. This is a subject very close to my
heart, because my home state of Montana contains so much public land.
Montanans are affected very deeply by decisions regarding federal land,
because they are the ones trying to make a living on that land, or live
next to it, or use it for recreation.
One example of the heavy-handed decision making displayed by this
last administration was completed just yesterday when President Clinton
declared 149 miles of land on the Missouri Breaks as a National
Monument. I have expressed my disappointment in this action many times,
to Secretary Babbitt, and yesterday to the President. Neither of them
understand why I am so opposed to the designation. In their minds, it
is an action to ``protect'' the area. And I ask them, ``Protect it from
what?''. Protect it from the ranchers and the people who have kept that
area looking almost exactly the same as it did 200 years ago when Lewis
and Clark came through? The Montana Legislature passed a resolution
saying, ``We don't need a special Monument designation.'' The BLM's
Resource Advisory Committee, which was made up of people with all kinds
of interests, did not recommend any special designation.
The problem with this designation is that it was not done in the
spirit of cooperation. The people who ordered it don't understand how
it will affect people, and how it makes Montanans and other Americans
mistrust government agencies when they ride into town and make all
these rules without one concern for the ranchers, for the communities,
and for the other people who have to bear the cost of these decisions.
As you can see, it is very possible for the Department of the
Interior to be a one-way street and hand down regulations unilaterally.
I know that with Gale Norton at the helm, this will not be the case. As
a person who understands the vast spaces of the West, I am confident
that we can count on her to be open and fair. Besides the fact that she
hails from the Rocky Mountain West, I support Gale Norton because she
brings outstanding credentials to the job. Having served as the
associate solicitor of the Department of the Interior, and as the
attorney general of Colorado, her knowledge regarding public lands
policy will serve her well. She will look for answers to the hard
questions, and I am confident she will find them just as she has
elsewhere.
There are a few specific issues I would like to mention to note how
important they are in Montana, and also for many other states. When we
look at public lands, energy development and access to public land are
vital to Montanans. These issues will be coming up again and again over
the next few years, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in
the Senate and with the Secretary of the Interior to craft sound policy
with respect to maintaining a reliable supply of domestic energy and
making sure our public lands are available to the public.
When you look across this country, you see high prices for
petroleum, for natural gas, and electricity. This means high fuel
prices, and pressure on families who are trying to heat their homes,
and manufacturing companies that have to shut their doors because they
simply cannot afford to keep the power running. I realize this is not a
hearing for the Secretary of Energy, but there is no way we can form a
comprehensive energy policy for this country without considering the
role that public lands play. I trust that as Secretary of the Interior,
Gale Norton would keep this in mind, and work with Congress to make
sure we are making wise use of our public land resources.
Secondly, I want to talk about access. As far as I am concerned,
the best role for government is to stay out of people's lives whenever
possible. When we look at the record of the previous administration, it
is obvious that this was not the philosophy where public land use was
concerned. In fact, the goal seemed to be the opposite, to have
government rules and restrictions so thick that no one could ever use
public land for whatever reason. I am ready to end that era and start
down a different road, and I appreciate the fact that Ms. Norton
understands the role of private property owners and how that plays into
public land management. I look forward to working with an
administration that calls on Congress to help with establishing things
like National Monuments and Wilderness Areas, rather than making scores
of rule changes without the involvement of the stakeholders.
Another area that the Department of the Interior must consider are
policies concerning telecommunications and rights-of-way for the cable
needed to expand high speed Internet access. Over the last year we have
run into situations during Interior Appropriations season where the
Department wanted to dramatically increase lease fees for fiberoptic
wire running across BLM land, which would pose a severe threat to
economic development in my state and others. I just want to bring this
matter to your attention as an example of how the policies of these
agencies need to adapt as the world changes with the dawning of the
information change. There are so many new opportunities, I want to be
sure they are not lost because of antiquated rules.
These examples that I have mentioned are complicated problems, that
will require well thought out answers, and I am confident that Gale
Norton is the right person to lead the Department of the Interior in
that effort. Just as we will need to work together in this evenly
divided Senate, we will need to have people in place within the Cabinet
who know how to listen, and how to cooperate. Ms. Norton has proven
through her many years of public service that she is able to bridge the
gap between people who do not see eye to eye.
I am here today to offer Ms. Norton my wholehearted support in her
nomination for the Secretary of the Interior. She is the right person
for this job, and I cannot imagine how we could find anyone better
qualified. I look forward to working with her.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell, you will ask the final set of questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that opportunity, being the new member on the committee.
Ms. Norton, welcome to the committee. Again, I've heard
compliments by former colleagues of yours, our attorney
general, so I appreciate your work. Obviously, the Secretary of
the Interior is a very significant position for our entire
country, but has a significant impact on the Pacific Northwest.
So I'd like to--I know there's been a lot of conversation and
dialogue about your statements, but I actually was curious
about your thoughts on a comment that President-elect Bush made
recently--it was in the New York Times on the 14th of this
month--in which he said ``I understand the Western mentality
and I want the Western mentality represented in this
administration.''
He went on to say that ``We've got lawyers looking at every
single issue, every single opportunity to reverse the actions
Mr. Clinton has taken in the waning weeks of his presidency.''
So I wanted to get your thoughts about that comment
because, obviously, I look at the Western mentality maybe from
a little bit different perspective, although I don't think that
means that I have munchkins working as my staff or I'm joining
the debate society here. I just believe from many parts of
Washington State where we've had explosive growth that those
environmental policies have allowed us to grow and preserve a
great quality of life.
In fact, the last 5 years I've spent hiring a lot of people
in a company that grew from about 15 in 5 years to over 1,000,
and I can tell you that one of the number one questions they
asked was about the environmental quality in the Northwest. In
fact, I had to convince a candidate at one point in time to
join the company because we really did have urban growth
boundaries in the State of Washington in the Puget Sound area
to protect the quality of life and the State that that person
was coming from didn't have those urban growth boundaries.
So to me the Western mentality means also preserving a
great quality of life. I know that that's a hard challenge.
My specific questions come on two areas where the Northwest
has managed, because of these policies, to implement good
plans. The first of that is, under the Endangered Species Act,
the habitat conservation plans. In fact, I was just in the
State last week and heard from some of the timber industry who
wanted to brief me on how much success they had made under
those HCP's.
My first question is, do you plan the request the necessary
funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service so that those HCP's
and further HCP's, the habitat conservation plans, can continue
to be implemented?
Ms. Norton. Thank you for that question. President-elect
Bush has said that he very much values the efforts being made
to preserve the salmon, and it's certainly consistent with the
philosophy that I have discussed of trying to work with the
locals to recognize the important efforts that have gone into
the Pacific Northwest efforts to maintain the salmon
population.
While I don't know all of the specifics about that, that's
something I certainly plan to study if I'm confirmed as
Secretary of the Interior. But I do know that President-elect
Bush has made clear his desire to work towards the efforts
recognized by the Governors of the States affected by the
salmon issues in the Pacific Northwest to try to have
preservation of the salmon.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you for that, for that answer.
The second question is similar, a situation where I feel
like we've made great progress, on protection of the Hanford
Reach that was designated, and I know you had some questions
earlier about the Antiquities Act, but our community was
working well before the development of that as a national
monument, trying to work out an agreement. So there had been a
lot--in fact, there had been developed a local plan. So, while
not 100 percent consensus, there had been a local plan.
In that regard, this is a particular area playing a vital
role in salmon recovery and covers over 195,000 acres of the
last undammed stretch of the Columbia River. So in thinking
abut moving forward in some of the statements, what will you do
to make sure that we preserve that as a national monument and
will you commit to not making any changes in that unless
consulting with the Northwest delegation?
Ms. Norton. I again look forward to learning more about
that. I'm not really familiar with that particular area and
with what the status of that area is. So I'll look forward to
learning more from you about that.
Senator Cantwell. So is that something that we could get a
comment, again not to take the rest of the remaining few
minutes of the committee's time, but is that something we could
get a comment giving more details on, because it is a project
that we would want to know your support of?
Ms. Norton. We could certainly look at providing some
comments for the record on that, some written comments.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that indulgence.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you very much.
We'll plan to recess until 9:00 tomorrow and at that time
we'll continue with any Senators that haven't had a chance to
ask the first round of questions. If they're not here, we'll
start with the second round.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 5:03 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to be
reconvened on January 19, 2001.]
GALE NORTON NOMINATION
----------
FRIDAY, JANUARY 19, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Chairman Bingaman. The committee will come to order.
The committee resumes its consideration of the nomination
of Gale Norton to be Secretary of the Interior this morning.
The idea was that we would pick up where we left off yesterday,
in the 8-minute first round of questions, but according to the
information I have here the only Senators who have not had a
chance to ask their first round of questions are Senators
Nickles and then our new members, Senator Feinstein, Senator
Kyl, and Senator Shelby, and I do not see any of them here.
I know that again, today, just as yesterday, Senator
Feinstein and perhaps some of the others are detained in the
Judiciary Committee with that hearing as well, and so we will
go ahead with the second round of questions and limit this to 5
minutes per Senator and go around and ask those questions and
see if there are additional questions Senators have. I will
start and ask my questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, since we have changed
rooms and I have already gone to the wrong room, I can cite
that there is nobody waiting in the other room, but I do want
to join you in welcoming again for the second day our nominee
and look forward to resolving all of the questions that the
members have and, as long as the roof does not leak, we ought
to be able to finish this today.
Chairman Bingaman. All right. Let me follow up on some of
the issues that were raised yesterday. Some of those, some of
your responses obviously were general, and the questions were
general. Let me try to get down to more specifics.
On the Endangered Species Act you indicated that you
supported the goal of the Endangered Species Act, or at least
that is what I understood you to say, but differed on the
interpretation of certain provisions of the act. If your
interpretation in that Sweet Home case had prevailed, as I
understand it, the Fish & Wildlife Service would not be able to
enforce the protection of habitat that was critical to the
survival of a threatened or endangered species. That was the
position I believe you took in that case, and had your position
prevailed it would have significantly limited the ability of
the Federal Government to protect endangered species as they
currently do.
Since your cosigning of that amicus brief in the Sweet Home
case is one of the few public statements we have to judge your
views on the Endangered Species Act, I guess I would like to
ask not just whether you support the goal of the Endangered
Species Act but whether, in fact, you still adhere to that
interpretation of the act.
TESTIMONY OF GALE NORTON, NOMINEE TO BE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Norton. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. It is a pleasure to join you again today to talk
about my background and some of the goals that President-elect
Bush and I wish to pursue if I am confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior. The Endangered Species Act, as I said, I do support
the goals of that, but I also want to make clear that I will
apply that act as it is within, and as the courts have
interpreted it.
The issue in the Sweet Home v. Babbitt case, one that did
talk about habitat on private lands and, as we address
specifically in the brief, on State-owned school lands, and
that was the issue that we addressed specifically from the
perspective of the States of Colorado and Arizona in the brief
that was filed.
That issue would not have limited in any way, whichever way
the court decided, the ability of the Fish & Wildlife Service
to enforce the provisions that prevent private parties from
taking or harming or from in any way directly impacting the
species themselves. All of those would have remained completely
intact.
The courts have decided that, in addition to things that
affect the species directly, the Fish & Wildlife Service has
the ability to regulate habitat on private land and I will
enforce that provision.
Chairman Bingaman. Well, thank you very much for that
response.
Next, I wanted to ask about the Surface Mining Act. I know
you alluded to this yesterday, but again, just to clarify, in
an amicus brief that you filed in 1980, or you cosigned, I
gather, you argued that the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act was unconstitutional. As I understand it, the
Supreme Court in that case ruled against the position you
advocated. I guess the question is whether you still harbor
concerns about the constitutionality of that act, or have
problems with the current Department of the Interior
interpretation of the Surface Mining Act.
Ms. Norton. The Surface Mining Act, as you know, is
designed to require the reclamation of property that has been
mined and to ensure that mining takes place in an
environmentally acceptable way, and that is something that I
support. There were some differences in the way in which that
was to be implemented and specifically as to the role of the
States in implementing that. The U.S. Supreme Court directly
addressed the issue of the State v. Federal in that act, and I
will certainly enforce the law in the way that it has been
interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Chairman Bingaman. You were asked by several Senators
yesterday about your view of the Takings Clause in the
Constitution and the extent to which you believe that there is
an obligation on the Government to compensate for takings in
areas where they have not compensated in the past.
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday,
also dealing with that same issue, and saying that a market-
based approach outlined by Ms. Norton in her writing would be
to require the Department of the Interior to pay for habitat
required to help preserve endangered species. Under current
law, the agency forces landowners to maintain habitat. The
change, she writes, would force the Government to develop
spending priorities, and then they go into some quotations from
your writing. Could you clarify for us whether you believe that
the Takings Clause needs to be reinterpreted in some way by the
Department of the Interior?
Ms. Norton. The issue that has been addressed by Congress
and that has been very difficult for Congress to resolve in the
Endangered Species Act has been the impact on private
landowners and how we can best reconcile the impact on
landowners with the need to preserve endangered species, and we
want to see both of those kinds of things taken care of because
we both care about farmers and ranchers and their ability to
use their property, as well as the important desire to protect
endangered species.
The issue is largely one that is before Congress in terms
of any reforms that it might make in the Endangered Species Act
that would allow it to have some way of resolving those issues.
The Takings provisions, as the U.S. Supreme Court has
interpreted them, provide very specific guidelines as to when
compensation is required. Beyond that is a question that
Congress may want to consider to provide either additional
compensation or in some other way to help resolve those issues.
Chairman Bingaman. But you see that as a responsibility of
Congress if it decided to compensate for takings in ways that
the Supreme Court has not said are required?
Ms. Norton. That is basically correct, but I would also
like to pursue in that same spirit the proposals that
President-elect Bush has made to provide landowner incentive
programs like the one they have in Texas that provides
voluntary assistance to private landowners to enhance habitat
of endangered species, that provides technical assistance and
some financial assistance to landowners in that way, and that
is something that we would like to explore. I think that is the
kind of innovative approach that helps reconcile those issues.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you very much. My time is up.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Bingaman.
Evidently, last evening the Secretary of the Interior
issued a series of orders. Now we have not been able to get
copies of those orders yet, but they could have severe impact
on Western States and particularly my State of Alaska.
This was done without any public process of any kind, and
to suggest it was in the dark of the night, if it was not, it
was close enough. In some cases, allegedly, these changes would
overturn policies that have existed within the Department of
the Interior for nearly 20 years. Some evidently involve
designating wilderness study authority by the BLM. Some of it
involves seismic activity in Arctic Alaska and the prohibition
of seismic activity in various areas. Some of it evidently
involves Alaska Native Corporation lands and trust
responsibilities of the Secretary.
Now, obviously, neither one of us knows specifically what
we are talking about, but I would ask if you would commit to
this committee that if you are confirmed you will review these
actions by the Secretary, Secretary Babbitt.
Ms. Norton. Yes, Senator Murkowski, I will certainly take a
look at those actions. I am not familiar with--as you said, we
are not familiar with what might be in those actions taken.
Senator Murkowski. Well, since this is both a question and
an answer opportunity, as well as an opportunity for members to
make statements, I abhor this type of activity that represents
special interest activities and pressures that evidently are
prevailing within the Department of the Interior at this late
date without the input of our Governor, without the input and
consultation of the members of our Alaska delegation.
Now, that leads me to another question with regard to your
trust responsibilities. We have some situations in Arctic
Alaska where there are Federal lands next to State lands. We
have an actual case in point, where we have what appears to be
a successful discovery on State land that is very close to
Federal land. The question specifically is, what responsibility
do you have to ensure that the Federal lands and anything
beneath the Federal lands are not drained from activity on
State land, and how do you propose to ensure that that is not
occurring on Federal lands?
Ms. Norton. Senator Murkowski, I would be happy to take a
look at that issue and to work with you in helping resolve it,
but at this point in time I do not really know enough about the
situation in question to really have an opinion for you at this
time.
Senator Murkowski. Well, are you prepared to do everything
in your power to protect the Federal oil and gas reserves from
being drained from non-Federal lands?
Ms. Norton. I will certainly enforce the rights of the
United States to ensure that the property of the United States
is adequately protected.
Senator Murkowski. One additional question. We have a
number of wildlife sanctuaries in the United States where oil
and gas is recovered. One that comes to mind is the Paul J.
Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary in Louisiana. It is my understanding
that the National Audubon Society earns somewhere in the area
of $50,000 a year from royalties. The Michigan Audubon Society
has reaped benefits of hundreds of thousands of dollars from
oil and gas leases in the Baker Wildlife Sanctuary.
Now, a question of just whose control these wildlife
sanctuaries are, and there are others as well, and some may
overlap into your area of responsibility, but it does concern
me that in the particular case of Alaska the Audubon Society is
seeking to prevent our Alaska Native people from the same type
of commercial activities, and I would ask if you can assure me
that as Secretary you will not discriminate against Alaska
Natives and their legitimate claim to the subsurface rights of
their land.
Ms. Norton. Senator Murkowski, I certainly want to respect
the rights of everyone, the Alaska Natives, the Native
Americans in the lower 48, all of those in every part of the
United States who are going to be impacted by the decisions of
the Secretary of the Interior. I will do my best to take into
account the rights of everyone.
As to the issue of the oil and gas production that is
taking place within the areas that you mentioned, it is my
understanding that those, the Rainey Wildlife Preserve is
something that is owned by the Audubon Society itself, and that
it has satisfied itself that there are ways of having energy
production occur at the same time that the wildlife are
protected. I would like to explore exactly what they have
learned from that to see what we can do from the parkland
perspective to make sure that we are in that same way
reconciling the protection of species as well as the need to
satisfy the energy that we need for our economy.
It, I think, is something that certainly we can first learn
from, but also I think it is important to look at that model
for what we do with the resources that come from energy
development. President-elect Bush has proposed that the
revenues from any Arctic National Wildlife production would be
used for environmental purposes, for conservation for
alternative energy sources and so forth.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much. My time is up. I
will wait for a second round.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Norton, the
reason we are asking you all these questions is that if ever
there was a field that needed a uniter rather than a divider,
it is natural resources. My sense is you have made significant
shifts in a number of positions between yesterday and today's
questioning.
For example, on the Endangered Species Act, after you
challenged the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act
in the Oregon case years ago, you told Senator Bingaman that
now, not only would you follow the interpretation of the
courts, but, in effect, somebody else would have had to go out
and file the brief that you filed back then. So, on the
Endangered Species Act, the right to pollute, and global
warming science, it seems to me there have been significant
shifts in your position.
I want to explore some other areas that are important to
me, and let me go back to the Summitville case we talked about
yesterday. As you know, this was a case where a vast amount of
toxic waste spilled into the Alamosa River in your State.
Colorado was supposed to supervise that mine. It was the
State's job. The State did not do it. It seems to me it did not
watch-dog private parties, and then was pretty late in terms of
getting the Federal Government involved.
My question to you is: as Interior Secretary, what would
your policy be to prevent more Summitvilles, not just deal with
the problem after it is out of the barn, but what would you do
as Secretary to prevent more tragedies like Summitville?
Ms. Norton. Senator Wyden, first let me clarify a question
that you asked, and that was on the Endangered Species Act. The
brief that I filed dealt with one small portion of the act with
one provision of the act, and not with the entire act.
Senator Wyden. But it challenged the constitutionality of
the statute, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. No, if I may correct you, it did not challenge
the constitutionality of the entire Endangered Species Act.
This brief was filed after I had spent time as the attorney who
was primarily responsible for the administration of the
Endangered Species Act for several years at the Department of
the Interior.
I had been involved in trying to restore the population of
the majestic condors of California, and to work for many other
species to ensure that they would not become extinct during our
lifetimes. It is very important we do those kinds of things,
and undermining that entire act, that is not the thing that we
were attempting to do.
Senator Wyden. I heard you tell Senator Bingaman somebody
else would have to go out and file that brief at this point
because you support the law as interpreted by the courts. Do
you want me to take back what I earlier said? I, frankly
welcome the position that you are articulated yesterday to
Senator Bingaman, and we might want to leave it at that.
Ms. Norton. Well, I will certainly uphold the Endangered
Species Act and the concept of preserving endangered species is
something that I view as very important. It is one of the
responsibilities of the Department of the Interior that I will
vigorously pursue.
Senator Wyden. Preventing more Summitvilles.
Ms. Norton. A very difficult challenge is to determine how
we can go forward with utilizing our natural resources and
protecting the environmental values of our lands at the same
time. Summitville was a tragedy for the State of Colorado. We
dealt with that situation once it occurred as well as we could.
We went into court, dealing with obtaining an injunction to
prevent the mine operator from walking away from the mine, with
going into bankruptcy court to recover as much of the resources
as we could to apply those to cleaning up the mine site. We
worked with the United States in seeking to ultimately recover
from those who were separated from the corporation that had
operated the mine, but were nevertheless part-owners of that,
and so we pursued that case very vigorously.
We also learned in Colorado that to prevent future problems
like that one of the things that we would look at was
strengthening our laws and we made several changes in the law
to be sure that we could prevent that sort of thing from
happening in the future, that we would have the resources in
terms of mine inspectors to deal with that sort of situation,
so the State of Colorado learned from that experience.
I would hope to take some of those same things and examine
the Federal laws to see if there are appropriate changes that
should be made. At this point I do not really know exactly what
particular changes that we would propose. That is the kind of
thing, though, that I would be learning from my past
experiences and bringing that to the responsibilities of
Secretary of the Interior if I am confirmed.
Senator Wyden. The reason I ask the question is that to be
preventive you have got to go after private parties early and
watch-dog them, and what still concerns me about your record is
that after the problem is out of the barn you are willing to go
after the Federal Government, you are willing to sue the
Federal Government, but to me, if you are going to have a
preventive orientation you have got to be able to take on
private parties early on when problems develop, and I want to
ask you about the Asarco case as well as the Summitville.
Chairman Bingaman. Could you hold that for your next round?
Senator Wyden. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. I did not
know time was up.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Good morning, Gale, and welcome back before
the committee. This is your first exposure to this committee,
and I am sure you have watched or observed the actions of this
committee in the past, but one of the things I think we are
very proud of in this committee is the bipartisan way in which
we work.
We wrangle a bit, according to Secretary Babbitt. I do not
know that we are munchkins, but this last year this committee
by many voice votes produced the largest volume of legislation
of any committee in the U.S. Congress, and that has been the
record of this committee both under Democrat and Republican
leadership, and I think all of us are proud of that.
It probably also demonstrates the sensitivity of this
committee to the issues it has to deal with, largely the public
domain, and certainly energy, and we have worked very well
together, and I am pleased about that, and I look forward to
having you as a part of that bipartisan mix as we move down the
road.
Senator Wyden and others have expressed concern about your
relationship to the Endangered Species Act, and I think you
have clarified that well, but Mr. Chairman, for the record, let
me read parts of a letter that came to us that I think is
tremendously valuable in how it demonstrates Gale's actions as
a public official, a national public official, to the
Endangered Species Act. Senator Wyden expressed concerns about
that. He and I work very closely with State Foresters out in
our States, because of our States. This is a letter from a
State Forester in the State of Nevada. I think it is worth
reading in the whole.
It says, ``I would like to apprise the committee of my
professional experience with Secretary-designate Gale Norton. I
served as Deputy Director and Interim Director of the U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service from 1986 to 1989. During these years, Ms.
Norton was assigned as associate solicitor for my agency, and
we dealt with some of the most contentious issues of the time.
As a careerist, I can attest that Gale gave professional
counsel of the highest caliber. She never injected partisanship
or evidence of political agenda.
``Indeed, while others in the Department may have suggested
otherwise, she repeatedly interpreted the law, gave solid
advice, and defended those of us making the final decisions.
One specific action seems most exemplary of Gale's integrity.
The potential listing under the Endangered Species Act of the
desert tortoise was one of the most controversial facing the
newly installed Bush administration in 1989, and I know well
about that issue. We held hearings out in Barstow, California,
and out in Palm Springs.
``Secretary Lujan then was new to the agency and the
provisions of the act. As the Interim Director of the Fish &
Wildlife Service, I had to decide a listing that would have
great impact on my home State of Nevada as well as other
States. Gale Norton was there to provide even-handed legal
advice, tempered with common sense personal advice.
Essentially, Gale said, do what is right under the law. We did.
The tortoise was listed, the species was improved, growth has
been accommodated, and Nevada is the fastest-growing State in
the Nation, peoplewise, along with the tortoise. That is my
input.''
And he goes on, but I ask unanimous consent that that
become a part of the hearing record.
Chairman Bingaman. We will include that in the record.
Senator Craig. It is always nice to have testimony from
professionals and careerists who watch political appointees, as
you were at that time, deal in a forthright and evenhanded way.
I think that once again, based on past actions, your actions
before the Department of the Interior demonstrate exactly what
you have been saying before this committee over the last 2
days.
Gale, when I first came to Congress we were worried about
the condor. We were also worried about the B-1 bomber, and I
said at that time that Congress was more successful in getting
the B-1 to fly than they were a condor to fly. There was a
little truth at that time, and that was the early eighties. You
mentioned in your opening statement your relationship to that
issue. Would you give us a little bit more of your experience
in dealing with the condor, and your work inside the Department
at that time?
Ms. Norton. When I came to the Department of the Interior
as associate solicitor the number of condors in the wild was
dwindling. We watched with great concern as that population
dwindled even further. There was a big controversy about
whether we should leave those condors in the wild or should
bring them in for a captive breeding program. As that debate
had gone on, we had seen more of the condors in the wild die
from the causes that were too often related to the actions of
man. That is the kind of issue, of course, we will grapple with
at the Department of the Interior with other species.
The difficult decision that faced us was whether to bring
those condors in. Over the objections of many in the
environmental community, who said they should remain in the
wild, that they were a symbol, and that bringing them into
captivity would destroy that symbol, we made the decision to
bring them into captivity, and through a successful captive
breeding program condors have once again been released into the
wild. Condors once again fly in the skies of the Western United
States.
It is a small population. It is certainly not yet out of
danger. We took actions that were tough to be able to make that
decision to have that species preserved from extinction.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Gale. I think my time is up.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday in my round of questions I talked
about the Department of the Interior and its role in the
management of Outer Continental Shelf properties, and I would
like to continue with some further questions in that regard.
Yesterday, Ms. Norton, in your comments you indicated that
President-elect Bush and yourself were fully supportive of the
existing moratoria on new leasing in California and Florida
waters. Is that correct?
Ms. Norton. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Graham. As Secretary of the Interior, therefore,
would you oppose including existing moratoria areas in the
Mineral Management Service's 5-year plan on which work has now
begun?
Ms. Norton. Senator, I will be happy to look at that issue
at this point I am not familiar with the details of that 5-year
plan and the implications of that, and so I will need to study
that once I am confirmed, if I am confirmed.
Senator Graham. But if you are fully supportive of the
existing moratoria in California and Florida, would it not be
inconsistent then to consider including in the 5-year lease
plan which is currently being developed by the Mineral
Management Service areas that are currently subject to that
moratorium?
Ms. Norton. Unfortunately, I simply do not know enough
about the implications of that to be able to respond in a
meaningful way.
Senator Graham. What would be some of the implications that
might make it consistent with a position of being fully
supportive of the existing moratoria and yet also be supportive
of including those same moratoria areas in the Mineral
Management Service's 5-year lease plan?
Ms. Norton. I would like to find out what criteria are
involved in placing something on that plan, and whether it is
something that reflects the moratoria. I am not sure why that
program would not reflect the conditions of the moratoria that
are in place, and so I would like to find out why the
Department might be placing them on that list, despite the
moratoria.
Senator Graham. And despite the fact that you and the
President-elect fully support those moratoria.
Ms. Norton. That is correct. I would like to find out if
there is such a reason. That is not obvious on its face.
Senator Graham. I also understand from yesterday that you
would give respect to the wishes of individual States as it
related to determining their path relative to oil and gas
development in Outer Continental Shelf areas adjacent to those
States, is that correct?
Ms. Norton. I'm sorry, could you please repeat that?
Senator Graham. You also indicated that you would, and I
use the word respect the wishes of individual States in
determining the oil and gas development on Outer Continental
Shelf properties adjacent to those States, and I use the
specific example of North Carolina.
Ms. Norton. The wishes of individual States are certainly
at the core of President-elect Bush's support for the existing
moratoria, and I would be happy to explore with this committee
and with you any additional views by other States. We are clear
as to Florida and California and their desires to have
continued moratoria. We would seek the input from additional
States in order to determine exactly what circumstances should
apply as to those States.
Senator Graham. On July 24 of last year, Chevron and its
partners, Conoco and Murphy Exploration and Production Company,
filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Government. That lawsuit seeks
compensation for lease bonuses and rentals that had been paid
to the Federal Government, exploration costs, expenses incurred
for the preparation of environmental studies, and development
plans and opportunities, costs associated with the project.
This suit primarily involved a current lease that those
firms have on properties adjacent to Florida, specifically near
Pensacola, Florida. As Secretary of the Department of the
Interior, would you recommend that the administration settle
this lawsuit?
Ms. Norton. Because that is a matter in litigation, and
because it clearly seems to involve very complex legal issues,
it would not be appropriate for me to take a position at this
time. It is the type of thing that I will certainly work to
become familiar with if I do become Secretary of the Interior,
and would be happy to obtain your input in helping to resolve
that issue.
Chairman Bingaman. Can you withhold for the next round?
Senator Graham. I will withhold for the next round.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have known
Gale for many years and, very frankly, I am very comfortable
with her positions and, if we were to take a vote right now, I
would certainly vote for her. I do not know if we are going to
get to that today or not, but I would rather use my time to
make a couple of comments.
Chairman Bingaman. Let me just--not taking from your time,
let me just clarify. My intent would be to leave the record
open for committee members to file questions up until 5 o'clock
today, and then leave it to soon-to-be-chairman Murkowski to
call the committee back to session next week for a vote.
Senator Campbell. Thank you for the clarification. Does my
time start over?
Senator Murkowski. Let me comment on that if I can,
because--I want it not to count on your time, but for the
record I think it is appropriate, and I do not object to the
proposal by Senator Bingaman, but the previous nomination for
Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt, from the
standpoint of the actions of this committee, the hearing before
the Energy Committee took place January 19, 1993, and again the
hearing before the Energy Committee took place at a continued
hearing January 21, 1993.
The nomination was reported from the committee on January
21, 1993 and confirmed by the Senate that same date, January
21, 1993, so on the sense of conformity, why, we have moved out
with dispatch previously, but I have no objection to the
proposal by Senator Bingaman, but wanted the record to note the
action of the committee, and I would yield again back without
loss of time to Senator Campbell.
Chairman Bingaman. We will start your time again.
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
start out by asking unanimous consent to submit two things for
the record, one an editorial from the Denver Post of January
11, 2001 very extensively exonerating Gale Norton from any
responsibility in that Summitville mine mess, and another
letter from the current Attorney General of Colorado, Ken
Salazar, in which he does endorse her nomination.
Let me tell you, Gale, some of the questions you are being
asked maybe ought to be asked better of some of the other
nominees. What has happened is that the DOE, the EPA, the Ag
Department, Interior, it seems like everybody back here now has
a piece of the action, if I can use that word, on American
public lands, and yet the Interior Department, they seem to
focus when things go wrong on the Interior Department, but that
should tell you we need a lot of interagency cooperation. I am
sure I can speak for most members of the committee to tell you
we look forward to that, so it is not so confusing to us.
But since the Endangered Species Act has been brought up
two or three times, I want to comment on that. I happen to be a
supporter of the Endangered Species Act. I think the original
intent was good and support it, but I think that it has been
used in a number of times rather than for saving a species, for
doing something else, like stopping growth, and in my time I
would like to mention a couple of things you are probably very
aware of, the difficulty we have in getting the Animus La Plata
built is because of the lawsuits filed under the Endangered
Species Act on the squawfish, the humpback chub, and some other
kind of fish that years ago used to be designated as suckers,
or trash fish.
I would point out that the Federal Government was
responsible for killing the fish in the first place. We
provided the money to Colorado and Mexico to poison 90 miles of
waterways and then we throw up our hands in great astonishment
years later and say, my gosh, fish are no longer there,
therefore we have to put them on the endangered species list.
But times have changed. The Navajo dam has been built, and
I do not think you can talk to anybody in Senator Bingaman's,
the northwest part of his State, or the southwest part of my
State, that would say that we ought to tear down that dam to
comply to the letter of the law in the Endangered Species Act,
because under the letter of the law we are supposed to also
provide the former habitat. We cannot do that We simply cannot
do that. Times change. Water temperatures have changed.
In the case of the Navajo dam the waterways have been
stocked with trout. They are now gold medal fishing areas. I
think only a nut would say we ought to tear that all down so
that we could return the habitat to the fish that we
intentionally killed. That is how the thing has gone awry.
As an example, I did a hearing in northern Colorado a few
months ago and a gentleman came down from Montana--excuse me,
Wyoming to tell us a story of on his ranch how he had a dry
pasture but he had water rights to be able to irrigate that
pasture, and so he put a ditch in. There was nothing living. It
was just dry as a bone in that area. He put a ditch in, and lo
and behold the pasture became productive that some mice moved
in. They were not there before. They migrated in, people's
meadows jumping mice, and I am sure you are aware of the
problems those have caused in Colorado.
The mice moved in because there were now seeds and plants
to eat. When the ditch silted in, as they all do--you have to
clean them every year. Anybody that ranches knows that. When
the ditch silted in and the water could no longer get there, he
wanted to clean the ditch, he was prevented by the Federal
agencies from cleaning the ditch because now it was the habitat
of the mouse that wasn't there before. So when the ditch silted
in, the whole thing went dry again and the mice left, and he
lost the production of that field.
I think those are examples of where the Endangered Species
Act has kind of gone awry, and I know that some people are
almost scared to death to say that we ought to revise that, or
we ought to make some changes in that to express the reality of
what is going on out in the hinterlands of America.
The environmental community, I mean, it is like touching a
third rail when you suggest that thing needs to be revised, but
it does need to be revised, and I am not a bit shy about saying
it, and I do not expect you to do that. That will not be your
job, it is ours, but there have been several bills introduced
that would make some revisions.
Senator Kempthorne, who is now the Governor of Idaho,
introduced a bill a few years ago. We could not get it moving.
The present administration does not support any revisions at
all, but I think as time goes on and we see how it often is
abused, that we are going to have to make some revisions, so I
just want to throw that out, because I really do not have any
further questions to ask you.
I think you are going to be a very fine Secretary of the
Interior, and I am just convinced you are going to do your job
with great diplomacy and stature.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Ms. Norton, again thank you very much for
your testimony yesterday and today. I would like to ask some
questions about a range of issues. First, grazing rights, and
grazing fees.
In western North Dakota we have a good many ranchers that
graze their cattle on public lands. Most of that is Forest
Service, and not BLM jurisdiction, but one of the early battles
we had in this administration some 7 or 8 years ago was on the
issue of grazing fees, and actually there was a bipartisan
group of us that fought back on some of those issues. Can you
just give me your view of some of the broader issues on
grazing, especially grazing fees on public lands?
Ms. Norton. In the West the use of public lands for cattle
grazing is one of the key parts of our agricultural economy. It
is a use that has taken place for generations, and many of the
ranches in the West are based on having that core of public
lands available.
I know many ranches who are wonderful stewards for the land
who really take great pride in their ability to work with the
Federal agencies to manage those lands well and to ensure that
their livestock are not causing problems for those lands. The
overpopulation by livestock on those lands can be destructive
and that is something that the agencies need to be aware of.
They need to manage those lands appropriately.
The issue of the amount of money that should be charged to
ranchers for grazing on public lands is an issue that I know
has been very controversial. It is something that requires a
weighing of the different values and appropriate attempts to
try to determine that level of fee that would make sense. It is
not an easy magic number that one can simply determine, and I
know for you all that has been a very difficult battle to try
to find that right level. I will certainly work with you to try
to provide all of the information that is necessary to provide
information about how we are managing those lands and what the
impact of cattle on those lands are so that you can make that
determination.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Domenici and my colleague Senator
Craig, I think yesterday, were trying to draw you out some to
figure out in what areas would you seek to be very different
than the current Secretary on issues at Interior, and I think
my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, said I hope you
are different in a range of areas.
I hope you will be very aggressive in a range of areas in a
significantly different way. Can you describe to us how you
view your role as a new Secretary of the Interior if you are
confirmed, and how it compares to what has been happening in
Interior in the last 8 years?
Ms. Norton. I plan to move into the Department of the
Interior, if I am confirmed, and really learn about all of the
different issues and the things that have been done. I know
that what is reported in the press is often quite different
from the real scientific basis for a decision, or the statutory
basis for a decision, so I would be looking across the board at
those things that have been done in the past to evaluate those
things.
I would see one primary difference in my desire to involve
the people who are most impacted by decisions in making those
decisions. Certainly in the Western United States there has
been a large concern that their voices have not been heard,
that the current Secretary of the Interior has not listened,
has not sought to provide the input that those in the West
would like to have.
I would like to be sure that when we make decisions we are
making those with the input from all of those that are
affected, with the voices of ranchers, with the voices of
environmentalists, with the voices of everyone who is concerned
about these decisions heard as a part of the process. In
Colorado we have some ranchers that I know who went through a
process of trying to decide how their mountain valley was going
to be managed for the long-term future, and it involved public
lands and private lands.
It is a beautiful mountain valley, and it is near the
Crested Butte ski area, and that process is one that started
with the environmentalists and the ranchers very much at odds.
They were able to sit down together and find common ground, to
realize that no one wanted the entire valley to be ski condos,
that people wanted to see those scenic vistas preserved. By
working together they were able to come up with solutions.
Now, if Washington, D.C. had been the decisionmaking place,
without the people who directly knew that land making those
decisions, I don't think we would see the kind of cooperative
working relationship that eventually came forward. That's the
type of decisionmaking that I would like to foster.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back
again, Gale. I want to pursue this. One of the difficulties we
have had certainly is having input that mattered. I was
recently at a meeting with Secretary Babbitt. He mentioned in
his talk ten times partnerships. Well, the experience we have
had with partnerships is kind of one horse and one dog, kind of
that relationship.
What I would like to hear you talk a little bit about is
cooperating agencies. We started that last year, which was a
specific way of States and adjoining counties being involved.
We have had experience of going through the NEPA process and
then having the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary come out at
the end of it and put out a different proposal altogether, so
how could we strengthen this idea?
I understand on Federal lands that the Federal Government
has a responsibility for the final decision, but if we are
going to talk about partnerships, if we are going to talk about
cooperating agencies, maybe you could--and I guess you
expressed yourself, but how could we sort of ensure that there
is a legitimate input into these kinds of proposed
partnerships?
Ms. Norton. If I am confirmed as Secretary of the Interior
I plan to work with the Western Governors, with the Attorneys
General, whom I know as personal friends, with the officials on
a State basis and a local basis, to begin a process of
involving them. From them, we need to move out to the private
sector groups that are also to be impacted by our decisions,
and to begin on a case-by-case basis as we see important
decisions arising, finding appropriate ways of inviting
everyone who would be affected to have an input into that
process.
It is going to be a continuing dialogue. You know best in
your State who are the people that are really going to be
impacted by something, and looking to your guidance in finding
those who should be involved in a particular decision would be
the kind of feedback that I would hope to get, and that applies
on a bipartisan basis.
I think each of you know and understand your own State, and
each of you has an appropriate role in expressing to Federal
agencies what your concerns are, and I would hope to have that
kind of input from both sides of this table.
Senator Thomas. One suggestion. I think when we go into
these, particularly with cooperating agencies, there ought to
be a well-defined definition before they begin as to what the
various rules are. It makes it much easier.
On another matter, as you know, on BLM lands, lands that
have been nominated often for wilderness, but never acted on by
the Congress, which is required, and they are managed forever
as wilderness when in fact they have never been designated,
what is your reaction to that?
Ms. Norton. Senator, when Colorado established wilderness
areas in the early 1990's we went through a process, with
Senator Hank Brown taking the lead on that, to have input and
comment on all the various areas to determine which ones should
be protected as wilderness and which ones should be handled in
other ways, and it is that kind of process of making decisions
about the management that need to go forward, and that creates
a system of having some areas that are managed as wilderness
and some areas that are managed in other ways. We just need to
determine for the various areas of land what is the appropriate
usage for those lands.
Senator Thomas. The difficulty is that there never has been
a determination. They are nominated. Therefore they are managed
that way without having made a decision.
Would you comment--we have heard several times before,
would you comment on the difference between a role of Attorney
General, or the lawyer representing his client or her client as
the State, as opposed to the head of an agency? Is there a
difference as to how you look at the law?
Ms. Norton. There is a very big difference, Senator,
between the role of the Attorney General and the role of an
agency head, and something that Senator Wyden raised in one of
his questions is an example of that. An Attorney General is not
one who has the regulatory inspectors and does not have the
people that make the policy decisions on health issues,
environmental issues, under the Attorney General's
jurisdiction. The Attorney General is referred cases from
various agencies and acts upon those things when problems
arise.
Colorado is a little different than some other States. I
know, Senator Bingaman, in your role as Attorney General of New
Mexico you had the ability to go forward with some
environmental criminal prosecutions. In Colorado, the Attorney
General does not have the independent ability to do that, but
needs to obtain a referral from the State Health Department
before being able to go forward with any sort of environmental
criminal prosecution.
We worked closely with the agencies. We were counsel for
the agencies and advised them. We answered questions for them
as time went on. The Attorney General is a law enforcement
position. I took seriously my responsibilities to enforce the
laws of the State of Colorado and to represent the agencies
that were the executive agencies for the State.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last year, we appropriated $1.6 billion to deal with the
fires of 2000. As you well know, I think, the West was hit last
year, New Mexico being one of those areas of wildfires, and I
am interested in how you are going to approach how we are going
to use that money in restoration, and any plans at all, and
prevention, on how we are going to use those dollars to prevent
that devastating kind of situation to happen again.
Ms. Norton. I know that your State was more seriously
impacted by the fires than the State of Colorado, but even for
us it was devastating to see.
I remember last summer looking across the Denver area and
seeing huge clouds of smoke across the landscape, and even in
downtown Denver you could smell the burning wood from our
forests that were on fire. My husband and I went to drive
through the mountain areas after the fires were over and we saw
entire hillsides that had been destroyed by the fires, and
through the efforts of some valiant firefighters we saw that
even though a huge area of burned forest had unfortunately left
nothing but charred wood there were a few homes that were still
left standing.
That is something we do not want to see again. We want to
do what we can, to be as proactive as possible to see that we
are using the funds provided by Congress wisely to deal with
the problems, to find ways that we can have healthy forests
that will not be susceptible to those huge fires taking place
in the future.
Obviously, Colorado's lands were Forest Service, Department
of Agriculture lands, and they have the bulk of the areas that
might be impacted ny this, but the Department of the Interior
has a serious responsibility here, and this is something that I
will certainly have as a very high priority for myself.
Senator Burns. I would suggest that with the appropriation
of these funds and how the different agencies of BLM, and I
would hope that the BLM--I have said, you know, we can get a
lot done if there is some cooperation between agencies. In
other words, if the approach of the BLM to their forests and
grasslands is the same as the forest service is with basically
their forestlands, and the same sort of policies, those
policies kind of fit hand in glove whenever we talk about
forest health, range health.
You see, I have always maintained that there was a society
that was not funded by the Government that probably had more to
do with the increased carrying capacity and the health of our
grasslands than anything that the Government ever did, and that
was the Society for Range Management, and I know you are
familiar with those people and the work they do. That was all
funded by the different organizations that used those lands,
principally in the grazing areas. You are familiar with the
Taylor Grazing Act?
Ms. Norton. Yes, sir, I am.
Senator Burns. You know, we get to talking about fees and
what we want to do about grazing. There is a law in place that
gives us the guidelines on how we ought to approach grazing on
public lands, and that was the Taylor Grazing Act, and the
reason it was passed, it gave some permanency to those folks
who use and own permits on public lands for grazing, and I
think we get to thinking outside the box. We put the Taylor act
to one side, and we forget that the guidelines are there to
help us make the decisions as far as grazing is concerned, and
make sure those grazings are well within the environmental
guidelines that this country wants to do with those lands.
I have always said that if livestock was completely taken
off of the public lands, that there would be no wildlife,
because there would be no water reservoirs, there would be
nothing that could even sustain life in some areas of our
country on BLM lands if it was not for grazing and some work on
it.
So I would like to be involved a little bit whenever you
start talking about how you are going to spend that $1.6
billion. That is quite a lot of money, but I think we can put
it to good use for environmental reasons and also that we look
upon our lands with a common-sense point of view. We cannot
continue to let a fuel build up and then hit some drought years
and think of it as--the only other element that is missing here
for disaster is lightning, and it is not man-made. About the
time you think you are in control of this old Earth, you know,
there is a man upstairs that changes our mind about that whole
thing.
But I would hope we could work closely together on
restoration and range health and also forest health in the BLM.
Also, it is going to be--one of my priority items in the
next 4 years, anyway, is the rebuilding of the infrastructure
of our national parks, especially our services that handle
people. We have two of the crown jewels. Part of Yellowstone is
in Montana. Although it is a little sliver we still claim it,
and I have an ongoing argument with Senator Thomas and the
Senator from Idaho, but we know that infrastructure needs are
way behind, and I look forward to working with you and the
Director chosen to direct the Park Service in establishing some
priorities as far as infrastructure to handle people, and the
impact that people have.
You know, we found out that some of the greatest polluters
in the world are, the enemy is us, and so we have to deal with
those.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity, but
those are two areas where I have serious concerns, and also the
Taylor Grazing Act. I think it is very, very important we get
back to the basics and start thinking of those lands as a
resource in western North Dakota and Montana, and BLM and
Forest Service grasslands, and help those people out, because
that does impact real people.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Daschle, our Democratic Leader,
asked me to ask this question of you. Recently, the Fish &
Wildlife Service wrote a biological opinion on the management
of the Federal dams on the Missouri River aimed at protecting
endangered species. Would you aggressively work with the Corps
of Engineers to implement that opinion?
Ms. Norton. Senator, I am not thoroughly familiar with the
opinion that was issued by the biologists, and I know that
endangered species biological opinions are based very heavily
on a study of the science of endangered species and what those
species require. I would hope to work with the Fish & Wildlife
Service and the Corps of Engineers to determine what is
appropriate and to examine the decisions that have already been
made.
Chairman Bingaman. Let me ask about national monuments. We
talked about it some yesterday. You indicated in one of your
responses yesterday that you would be carefully reviewing the
national monuments that have been designated and seem to give
the impression that you might endorse efforts to overturn some
of those designations. Could you indicate anything about the
standards you would be using, or the criteria you would be
using in reviewing these monument designations to determine
whether they were appropriate or whether they should stand, or
whether you would try to take some action to contradict them?
Ms. Norton. With monument decisions having been made so
very recently, clearly we have not had the opportunity to even
define what the range of options might be, much less what
decisions would be made in choosing between those options, so
at this point in time we are not really prepared to make any
sort of determination on what would happen with the monuments.
It clearly is a decision that can have a huge impact in
various States, and we would hope to seek input from those who
are affected to determine what course of action is appropriate
in terms of management of those monuments and in terms of how
those tracts of land should appropriately be handled, but I do
want to emphasize that the process that we would expect to go
through in the future with looking at additional designations
of land would be one quite different from that utilized by the
current administration.
I think it is appropriate to have a thorough understanding
of the impacts of monument designations before those
designations are made, and that happens by involvement of the
people within the States affected. I would certainly see that
the Bush administration, if I am confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior, or even if I am not, that the Bush administration
would be attempting to involve people in the making of those
decisions in the future.
Chairman Bingaman. Yesterday, I asked about the issue of
Federal reserved water rights. During the Reagan administration
the Department of the Interior Solicitor overturned the
previous agency policy and issued an opinion that the Federal
Government would not recognize an implied Federal water right
for wilderness areas and would not assert reserved Federal
water rights on behalf of the United States.
Now, that opinion was suspended and later withdrawn by the
Clinton administration. Would you seek to return to the
policies that the Reagan administration had in place with
respect to water rights?
Ms. Norton. Let me first make clear that the issue of
reserved water rights for wilderness areas and for other
important public lands is not an all-or-nothing kind of issue.
As Attorney General of Colorado I was an ex officio member of
the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and that board
established in-stream flow water rights for the protection of
fish and for the health of public lands and we worked with the
Federal agencies to have State in-stream flow rights that
protected especially the fish populations in a number of public
land areas.
We also worked on having areas where water was reserved
specifically for endangered fish species. We worked with, I
believe it was the Forest Service, although it may have been
the Department of the Interior, in having a combination of
Federal and State mechanisms for protecting the water in some
very sensitive environmental areas, and so there are many
different mechanisms that are available to Federal land
management agencies in trying to reconcile Federal reserved
water rights with our traditional State water allocation
programs, so I would hope to work with the State agencies in
dealing with that.
As to reserve water rights from a legal perspective, the
question is, was the intent of Congress, or of the President if
it's a presidential proclamation, what was the intent in
reserving a particular tract of land, and that requires an in-
depth legal look at the issues that surround any particular
reservation of land, and we would continue to look in depth at
those sorts of issues as we are making determinations about
reserved water rights.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you. My time is up.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, we have heard from some of our members about the
concern they have over Federal lands off-shore, 3 miles off-
shore and, as you and I both know, in many cases there have
been leases that have been sold, competitive bids, the Federal
Government has taken the money and never issued the leases.
I certainly respect the rights of any State to express its
opinion on whether or not it chooses to have OCS activity
beyond the State borders, beyond 3 miles. I think, though, it
represents a contingent liability of the Federal Government,
that at some point in time they are going to have to address
the disposition of these leases and if they are not going to be
issued, then is it not appropriate that there be some
settlement, that they return the bonus bids and get on with it
and resolve the dispute one way or the other?
Ms. Norton. As Attorney General of the landlocked State of
Colorado I've not had much opportunity to deal with off-shore
leasing, so I would look forward to learning more about those
issues so that I can work with you on that.
Senator Murkowski. Well, the problem I have is the States
that do not want it have every right to express that, and I
think we should respect it. On the other hand, I am a little
frustrated from time to time because there is no support from
those States that do not want it to the States who do want it,
and those States that do not want it have to have the energy,
but fail to recognize that it has to come from somewhere, so I
would hope that there would be a little more sensitivity to the
reality, as we see in California.
This energy has to come from some place, and if you use the
technologies that we have seen developed, particularly in the
Gulf of Mexico, where we are leasing now in 6,000 feet of
water, and drilling and recovering with remarkable success
rates and a minimum of environmental damage because obviously
the country needs the energy.
But I would suggest that it would behoove your Department
to kind of total up how much you collected over the years in
lease sales, and every issue of the leases, and these do
represent an obligation and there is ongoing litigation, and
could you provide this committee with that information at an
appropriate time, if you are confirmed?
Ms. Norton. Certainly at an appropriate time we would be
happy to work with you on providing the information that you're
looking for.
Senator Murkowski. I do not want my colleagues to
misunderstand my intention, but the leases ought to be canceled
and the money returned. Are you aware of the number of natural
resource development activities on National Wildlife Refuge
System land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service?
Ms. Norton. Senator, I would look forward to becoming more
familiar with that.
Senator Murkowski. Well, let me help you out. There are 76
activities on wildlife refuge systems under the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service that cover gas and oil exploration. There are
two that cover gravel extraction. There are two that address
hydro power generation. There are 16 that involve mineral
exploration. There are 10 active mines. There are two that are
involved in salt-making, and 10 in water extraction, for 118
activities on National Wildlife Refuge System lands. That seems
to have some degree of compatibility with the States and the
Federal system.
I would like to also add for the record this list which I
have before me of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service refuge lands as
inventory, and I would also like to note an article from the
Wall Street Journal that appeared yesterday, January 18, and it
reads as follows:
``There has been oil and gas production on Federal wildlife
refuges in Louisiana for nearly 60 years, resulting in the
drilling of 1,605 wells. Refuges on Louisiana's Federal
wetlands are home to ducks, geese, shrimp, crab, deer,
alligators, fish, and fur-bearing animals, but largely as a
result of the demanding environmental requirements for
operators there have been few adverse consequences from
drilling.''
It gets a little personal here, but it says, ``if Louisiana
can do it, why can't Alaska? We already have experience in
Alaska. A good example is Prudhoe Bay, which has produced 20
percent of our domestic oil since it was developed more than 26
years ago. It has done so in a way that is both economically
viable and environmentally safe.''
I might add, this is written by Senator John Breaux, and I
would ask that it be entered into the record.
Lastly, let me enter into the record a series of letters
into the record. One comes from the head of the San Manuel Band
of Mission Indians, the other comes from the Governor Guttierez
of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, the Native tribal
government and the Governor of Guam, and a list of some 20
Attorneys General, including the Attorneys General of Idaho,
Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Washington State, American Samoa,
Delaware, the Indian Attorney General, Kansas, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia,
Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah,
and Wyoming.
And Mr. Chairman, I think this certainly tells the
character of a person by those who have worked with that
person, and I am just going to read one paragraph of this
letter of submission with these names of the Attorneys General
in support of our nominee.
It says, first, in the early nineties Gale worked with
Attorney General and Governors in an effort to force the U.S.
Department of Energy to comply with Federal environmental laws
at its facilities around the Nation, the emphasis on force the
U.S. Department of Energy to comply with Federal environmental
laws.
Gale helped lead the fight to ensure that the Department of
Energy would be responsive to the States and comply with the
law and refocus on cleaning up Rocky Flats in Colorado and
other sites around the Nation.
I will not go further with the letter, but I think it
expresses for itself the confidence that the Attorneys General
have in our nominee.
Chairman Bingaman. We will certainly include the letter and
the article by Senator Breaux in the record.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I indicated, Ms. Norton, I want to ask about the Asarco
case. The Denver Post reported that when you were the Attorney
General of Colorado the people in the Globeville neighborhood
had to sue this company, Asarco, to clean up the heavy metal
emissions from a smelter there, and these were citizens who
felt that what the State had been able to secure was pretty
much insufficient. They went out and sued, and they got $20
million, and apparently were especially angry that the State
testified against them at trial.
So you had a situation where the State, in their view, was
not very helpful to them, and then the State went out and
testified against them at trial. Now, you have spoken favorably
about what is known as outcomes measures, and that is a fancy
way of focusing on the bottom line, the result. Yet, what the
State got does not seem to be very good results for the people
of this particular neighborhood. Would you like to suggest that
you will take a different approach at the Department of the
Interior in this area as well?
Ms. Norton. Senator, I welcome the opportunity to explain
something more about the situation that you have raised and the
issues that surround it.
First of all, as to the specific issues at Asarco, my
office worked with the State Department of Health in attempting
to clean up what had been a long-term metal smelter that had
emitted heavy metals that had contaminated the property who
were in the surrounding areas, and the health department
solution included going out and cleaning up the properties, the
front yards of people whose yards had been contaminated by
various heavy metals, and so that was a part of the proposal
that the health department had in place, and the question was
whether that was an adequate proposal.
It is my understanding that the witnesses you're talking
about were representatives of the State Health Department,
rather than the Attorney General's office, who were talking
about the scientific validity of the cleanup measures that they
had put into place, but beyond that is the bigger question of
whether those citizens had a right to recover damages or not.
We had a parallel situation in another area where citizens
tried to file suit to obtain reimbursement for their individual
damages, and the mining company that was involved in that case
said that no, any money that was paid to the State ought to be
sufficient, that those individual citizens did not have even
the right to file suit.
My office went into court in opposition to the mining
company and said yes, indeed citizens do have a right, and that
the Federal law has not overturned that right to be able to go
into court to protect themselves from pollution that is caused
by Superfund sites, and so my office supported the right of
individual citizens to be able to obtain damages in court from
pollution that is caused at Superfund sites.
Senator Wyden. I would like to see that case that you
referred to, because the reason I have asked about Asarco and
Summitville in particular is because my concern, as I look at
your cases, and I went back and reviewed everything that I
could get my hands on last night, is that you are willing to be
tough with the Federal Government fairly late in the game,
after a significant amount of damage is done, but I want to see
somebody as Secretary who will take a more aggressive
preventive approach early on, which means that very often you
step on some toes of private parties.
Now, with respect to this question of drilling for oil, and
energy development, as you know this was one of the, perhaps
one of the key hallmarks of the presidential campaign. the
President-elect said he was going to drill for energy, and made
it a focus of his campaign.
We have heard where you are not going to support drilling,
and support the current moratoriums, and that is welcome. Where
do you want to support drilling for additional energy, and if
the focus of your answer would be Alaska, I would like to hear
what amounts of energy you believe you think you could derive,
when you think you could derive it, and how much could be done
to prevent environmental damage?
The reason for asking is, we basically have not been able
to flesh out what was one of the key issues in the presidential
campaign, and it is a key issue for Interior, and perhaps you
could illuminate where the administration will be on actually
drilling for energy.
Ms. Norton. Senator, you have raised two questions. Let me
respond to those. As to my willingness to go after private
polluters, if you look even at the two sides that were the
biggest causes of concern for me as Attorney General of
Colorado, Rocky Mountain Flats and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal,
and all of those are, indeed, Federal facility sites, they are
areas that were hugely polluted by nerve gas residues, by
pesticide residues from production of pesticides, and by
plutonium trigger production with nuclear residues.
Those were huge issues for Colorado, because those are
located very close to the Denver Metropolitan Area, and so they
had to be a top priority for me as Attorney General. There were
private operators at those sites as well. The private
companies, Shell Oil Company at Rocky Mountain Arsenal and
Rockwell International at Rocky Flats, paid to the State
millions of dollars in penalties and in damages for the
expenditures of money at the cleanup of those sites, and so we
went aggressively after those companies to ensure that they
were held responsible for the contamination that they had
caused, and for any failure to meet State and Federal
environmental laws.
We were very aggressive in that, and I certainly would
apply the standards of ensuring that, whoever it is, that
people comply with the Federal environmental laws.
As to the issue of trying to resolve the energy problems
we're currently facing, right now we're seeing shortages in
California. Those shortages are short-term problem, but they
are indicators of a very long-term and very serious problem.
The area that President-elect Bush addressed in his campaign
promises was that he would look at the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge and at production in that area.
I have been told that production there would impact only
about 2,000 acres in an area that is well over the size of many
of our States, and trying to do that in a way that is very
environmentally responsible would be one of the challenges that
we would face, and what we would have to do is look at the
environmental mechanisms that can be put forward as to how to
do that production in the most responsible way, and that
decision would ultimately be that of you and Congress to decide
whether that would go forward or not.
It is not in the power of the President, it is not in the
power of the Secretary of the Interior to decide to open the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That is a decision for
Congress. The steps they are talking about are ones like doing
any exploration only in the dead of winter so that the tundra
itself would not be affected. It would only be ice on top of
the tundra where any vehicles might roll on, so that the tundra
itself would still be protected by all of the ice that is
ordinarily over it.
Those are the kinds of measures that are being discussed,
and we would certainly look to ways of trying to satisfy you
that an environmentally sound approach could be done to try to
look at reserves that we have heard are estimated to be larger
than Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil area ever found in the United
States.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, I suspect my time is up. I
would very much like you to furnish me and the committee in
writing your estimate of how much energy could derive from
Alaska, when it could be derived, and if you can amplify on the
steps you could take on environmental protection I would very
much like to have that, and appreciate----
Senator Murkowski. If I may help the Senator from Oregon
out, this committee has on two occasions, under both Republican
and Democratic leadership, reported out on bills covering
exploration in Alaska, and we should make those files available
to you and your staff as well. There has been EIS's done and
estimates given on numerous occasions by the Department of the
Interior, and I think you would find those very, very helpful,
and I am sure that we would be happy to provide the nominee
with that information.
Senator Wyden. If my friend would yield, I think your point
is a good one, and you have been very fair with this Senator
not just on Alaska issues but others. The reason I ask Ms.
Norton is, of course, we have a new administration coming in,
and that is why I would like her assessment and why I ask her
the questions. I want the record to show that I think Senator
Murkowski, next week's chairman, has certainly been fair with
all of us on these matters.
Senator Murkowski. I just wanted to let you know we have an
abundance of background material within the committee for your
review.
Chairman Bingaman. Why don't we take 5 minutes of questions
from Senator Nickles, and then we will take a 10-minute break
after that.
Senator Nickles. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I might
mention in response, staff tells me that EIA, under the Clinton
administration, estimated 1 to 1\1/2\ million barrels per day
from ANWR for 20-plus years. I might also mention in the
Prudhoe Bay area, which originally had production up to 2
million per day, it is now less than 1 million barrels a day.
Prudhoe Bay is declining and in my opinion we need ANWR to
supplement that, or else we are going to have an even greater
dependency from what we discussed yesterday with this
committee, with Senator Abraham.
I also want to put in the record a list of enforcement
actions that Secretary, or actually Attorney General Norton did
against private corporations, which included the Shell Oil
Company, which has over 10 million in fines against Shell and
the Army--anyway, a whole list of corporations where you made
fines and had settlements and agreements, and I will include
that in the record.
Ms. Norton, have you ever been to ANWR?
Ms. Norton. Unfortunately no, I have not.
Senator Nickles. Have you ever been to Prudhoe Bay?
Ms. Norton. No, I have not.
Senator Nickles. I would encourage you to visit both. I
think it would be helpful. It was certainly helpful to this
Senator, and I would encourage other Senators to visit both. I
think it would be very enlightening, and help us in our
discussions.
Ms. Norton, I want to mention just a little bit about the
Antiquities Act, and I know Senator Bingaman addressed this a
little bit, but these are going to be mostly comments, not so
much questions. I believe the Clinton administration is showing
real contempt of Congress and real contempt of Governors and
real contempt of the Constitution in his exploitation abuse and
I think exceeding certainly the intent of the Antiquities Act.
He has thrown, including January 17, adding another nine areas
under the Antiquities Act, squeezing them in for a total of
about 5.7 million acres.
There is an article in the Washington Post that said, ``oh,
he has done as much as any President in the lower 48 as
Theodore Roosevelt.'' Theodore Roosevelt completed, or did
total acreage of 1.5 million acres. President Clinton has done
5.6 million acres. In other words, President Clinton has done a
total of about almost four times as much as Teddy Roosevelt. He
has done more than any other President by a large amount, with
the exception of Jimmy Carter, which did the Alaska national
lands bill.
I might mention as well, he did his first one, President
Clinton did, in September 1996, right before the election, and
that dealt with 1.7 million acres in Utah. He did that as a
press release, and not in Utah, but in Arizona. He did it for
political purposes. He did not consult with the Governor. He
did not consult with the congressional delegation. He did not
consult with local officials. He did it as if he was king.
We did not see any more after the election. We did not see
any in 1997, any in 1998, we did not see any in 1999, but in
the year 2000, another election year, all of a sudden we have
another slew of presidential abuse of the Antiquities Act, no
consultation, and now for a total he went from 1.7 million
acres, now 5.7 million. In other words, he has added another 4
million acres, including about a million acres this week in
eight different sites.
Let me assure you, maybe I am all for protecting these
sites, but I am very against this process. I just spoke to the
National Governor, or the Republican Governors Association. I
think Governors, elected officials, should have some say-so,
some input, some degree of input on whether or not these areas
are going to be declared wilderness.
The President also, and it is not under your jurisdiction,
but in one letter to the Forest Service he wants to take one-
third of the Forest Service and basically declare it
wilderness, 58.5 million acres. The State of Oklahoma is 44
million acres. That is almost one-and-a-half times the size of
the State of Oklahoma, and he is saying it is off-limits to
roads and any activity whatsoever. That is absurd. He does not
have that authority. He has exceeded his authority.
If you read the Antiquities Act, in 1906 it was written for
the purposes--it is only a couple of paragraphs, but it says
limits in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area
compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be
protected. He is abusing the statute, and I would encourage you
to be vigilant in saying, wait a minute, let's repeal those and
have Congress and Governors and others look at what is the
rightful protection of these areas.
I will assure you this committee passes a lot of bills, a
lot of land bills, a lot of wilderness bills. We are happy to
protect national monuments. We are happy to protect areas that
need to be protected, but in the process we will listen to
officials from the States, we will have hearings, what is the
proper boundary, instead of having it dictated from the
Secretary's office or the President's office without local
input, without consultation, as if they know exactly what is
right in boundaries.
I am offended by the President's contempt of Congress. I am
appalled by it. He is abusing this act, and I mention that to
you because I don't want this administration to do it, I do not
want any administration to do it, Republican or Democrat. I
feel very strongly about protecting our precious resources, and
I want to do it, want to conserve it, but I want to have some
democracy involved in the process and not a dictatorship, not
an emperor.
And again, I think the Clinton administration both in the
Forest Service--there is a real abuse of this power, and I
think he has really abused the Antiquities Act, and I would
urge you to be aggressive--as he has been aggressive in trying
to have a land grab without local input, I would urge you to be
aggressive in repealing this, rescinding it, or suspending
them, until we have time for congressional and local review and
input.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you. Senator Schumer is trying to
balance his responsibilities here with his responsibilities on
the Judiciary Committee, and has asked to be able to ask his 5
minutes before our break, so go right ahead.
Senator Schumer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
all of the committee members for their indulgence, and I thank
you, Ms. Norton, for appearing here and for making yourself
available to all of our questions.
I have to tell you, being new to this committee and new to
many of these issues, I am still in the process of
familiarizing myself with the issues the committee deals with,
and with your record. Having said that, I do want to tell you
up front, as I told you privately, I have some strong concerns
about your environmental record, and I would like within the
time available to just explore a few.
The first is, I would just like to talk a little bit about
a very important issue in my city, which is the issue of lead
paint. It was something you were involved in, and I want to say
I do not think it is fair to take nominees to task for whom
they represent in private practice, so that is not the issue. I
just want to get your view on this issue up front, because I
think it is relevant to some of these discussions in terms of
corporate responsibility.
As I understand it, the dangers of lead in paint became
widely known a long, long time ago. It has been known as a
neurotoxin since the 1920's, and 14 countries, from Britain to
Yugoslavia, banned the use of lead in interior paint between
1909 and 1934.
Now, just tell us--now, it was not banned, of course, until
30 or 40 years later. Just tell us, do you believe that the
lead paint industry bears some responsibility for the health
problems caused by lead paint poisoning? I know when we talked
privately we talked about it being chipped off the walls and
all of that, and that would certainly be true after they
stopped putting the lead in paint, but what about over the
years where they may have known--and I do not want to prejudge
that--that this was poisonous and yet continued to sell it?
Ms. Norton. Senator Schumer, I appreciate the opportunity
to talk with you about that, and to talk with the rest of the
committee members.
To further that conversation that we had, I represented a
company that was involved in the production of lead for paint
many years ago. The question came to me as a former Attorney
General after I had left office, and there were those who,
following the tobacco settlement, had tried to predict which
industry would be essentially the next tobacco, and there were
several of those that were named, but one of those was the lead
paint industry, and so I came at it from that question of
comparing what that industry had done with what the tobacco
industry had done.
When I was an Attorney General examining the question of
whether I should file suit against the tobacco companies I was
appalled by their conduct. When I looked at the corporate
documents, when I found that even as we were considering filing
suit there were still things taking place that we consider to
be marketing to kids, that their activities appeared to violate
Colorado's antitrust laws, and its truth-in-advertising laws.
I looked at the record of the lead paint industry,
including the company that was my client, and there I found a
record of responsible corporate behavior, that as scientific
evidence became available as to problems, they responded to
those problems. The issues that first came out were essentially
with worker safety, and they took steps to deal with their
factories, with the safety of painters applying lead to walls,
and things were done to try to deal with those sorts of issues.
When it became apparent, or when it became rumored that
there might be problems with lead on the walls that were
deteriorating, and the children were being exposed to that, the
companies commissioned studies at Harvard and at Johns
Hopkins----
Senator Schumer. Do you know what year that was,
approximately?
Ms. Norton. It was in the late 1940's, and at that point
they found from those studies that, indeed, there was a
problem, and so instead of doing what the tobacco companies
have done, which was essentially to hide any conflicting
evidence, they went to public health officials and said, we
recognize that measures need to be taken, and they eventually
entered into a process with a number of different medical
groups and so forth, including the American Pediatric
Association, that resulted in voluntarily taking most of the
lead out of paint and this was done in, I believe, 1955.
The Federal Government did not ban lead in paint until
1978, and so these companies essentially voluntarily took their
product off the market long before the Federal Government
acted, and I view that as very, very different.
Now, I do also want to say that the companies recognize,
and I certainly recognize, that there are problems for our
children that are caused by deteriorating lead paint, as with
any other things in our homes that may have decayed in homes
that are 50 or 75 or 100 years old.
The best way to resolve that is for the landlords who own
that property, or for the people who reside in that property to
take the measures that fit that particular property, and the
States that have been most successful in dealing with those
things have strong records of enforcement of standards against
landlords to be sure that properties are handled appropriately.
Senator Schumer. Let me ask you this, just two quick
questions, and I know my time has expired. The 5 minutes goes
fast, and I am sorry I missed the first round. I have been
juggling back and forth, that is the problem.
First, do you think the companies bear any responsibility,
and second, if they knew before the late fifties when they took
the lead off the market on their own, but if they knew in the
late thirties or forties that lead was harmful, and obviously
that would be open to some dispute, but if they knew, would you
feel they had responsibility?
Ms. Norton. The companies are participating in the
processes of trying to find the right solutions. The solutions
require working with State legislators, which they have done,
in trying to help in formulating programs that will be
effective. Obviously, as Secretary of the Interior I would not
be involved in any of those issues. Those are not Department of
the Interior issues.
Senator Schumer. I am just trying to, on an issue that I
know a little bit about, want to sort of get your feel for
things, because the issues are similar. Some of the issues are
similar in terms of corporate responsibility and all of that
kind of thing.
So just to ask you again, do you think they have any
responsibility themselves in terms of liability, in terms of
all of these types of issues, where they might have known
earlier than before it was taken off the market? The analogy
would be to tobacco.
Ms. Norton. Those are issues that are in litigation. I know
from my own evaluation that I believe these companies acted
responsibly, and the law, I believe, recognizes good corporate
behavior, and companies that are willing to work with State
legislators and EPA and so forth to try to craft appropriate
solutions.
This is not just a simple problem that can be resolved
quickly. It is an issue that is going on right now, with
Federal funding for programs to help in cleaning up on a home-
by-home basis those kinds of problems, and I think those kinds
of Federal programs should certainly be encouraged.
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you very much. We will take a 10-
minute recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Bingaman. The committee will reconvene and
continue with the questioning.
Senator Craig, you are next.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to provide some
information on the Asarco Globeville site mentioned by Senator
Wyden.
There is a newspaper article that states the Norton actions
and how she helped, the press releases on the settlement issue
by Gale Norton and the Democrat head of the Department of
Health, about the important relationship between the private
plaintiffs and the State of Colorado and an Asarco Globeville
settlement.
I think it is important that those questions have been
asked, that the record be full as it relates to that, because
it clearly demonstrates I think the role that Ms. Norton played
as Attorney General, and the successes that were had there by
the State of Colorado and the plaintiffs involved.
Chairman Bingaman. We will be glad to include that in the
record.
Senator Craig. I listened with great interest, and Senator
Schumer is now gone, to his line of questioning as it related
to Gale's involvement with the paint industry.
I think it is also important, because I was looking at
background papers that I have available to me, as it relates to
that relationship. I know that Gale's critics have suggested
she does not care about the health and safety of children
because she represented a paint company, NL Industries, that 50
years ago manufactured lead-based paints.
Her former clients voluntarily discontinued marketing of
this for indoor use 50 years ago, and I think Ms. Norton has
mentioned that well before the Federal Government restricted
the use of the paint, the company no longer makes paint but
produces a safe alternative additive to improve the quality. It
is important that that be said, once again, I think, for the
record.
What is most important is that Gale's client did not
violate any State or Federal laws in manufacturing paint, from
my understanding, although 50 years later we have heard about
the risks of lead point. She did not represent the company in
any lawsuits, it is my understanding, and if any of what I am
saying is incorrect, Ms. Norton, please correct me, but only
monitored regulatory activities at the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and EPA.
What I also find interesting is that the Department of the
Interior is not involved in the removal of old paint from
homes, or lawsuits against the company to clean up housing
projects. While all of us who are associated with our Federal
Government I think are concerned about this, and Ms. Norton has
expressed her concern, we all understand that old houses with
old paint in them clearly represent a risk for children and
there is litigation and huge claims for monetary damage out
there, and I hope that we can all work together on this issue,
because it is important.
One thing I want to broach, Mr. Chairman, what I have been
pleased to hear from Ms. Norton is her endorsement of the
collaborative process as it relates to our stewardship
responsibilities. Clearly, she is entering and I believe will
enter a role of substantial stewardship, probably one of the
greater of our government as it relates to public land
resources, and Senator Wyden and I have worked very closely on
this issue of stewardship for the last several years in trying
to craft a situation that would bring stakeholders together,
and I think we have been successful in doing so.
I hope and I believe that the brightest opportunity for the
future for a Federal land management protection relationship is
taking the decisionmaking more closely to the local level
through a stewardship collaborative concept, and we are trying
to set some of that template here, and I would hope that you,
Ms. Norton, would lead us in that area. I think it is extremely
valuable in the future.
Many of us are frustrated and fatigued by the conflicts
that have gone on at the local and State levels. While here
they may stage a demonstration and hang a banner, out on the
ground is not only combat at times, in certain terms, it is
terribly frustrating. It is destructive of communities, of
people, and we just now had Senator Dianne Feinstein join us on
the committee. She is not with us today, but she is a new
member of the committee.
She and I worked together very closely to legislate on this
side the issue of a collaborative process in northern
California, better known as Quincy, frustratingly only to see
this administration badly damage the intent of Congress in that
area.
But you can play a very valuable role with us. What I would
ask of you is your willingness to work with Senator Wyden and
myself as we work with USDA, and you will play some role in it,
Interior will, in making sure that the laws we just passed,
where there is a collaborative process integrated into it, that
the regulation for that administration of a local collaborative
process at the community level for the use of these resources
become real and meaningful. I would trust I would have your
help in that, but I would like to hear it for the record.
Ms. Norton. As I understand what you and Senator Wyden have
been able to accomplish through your collaborative process,
that is exactly the type of model that I would like to follow
in many areas, and I would certainly be enthusiastic about
working with you to implement that through the Department of
the Interior.
Senator Craig. Well, Ron and I worked very well together,
as most of us do on this committee. This coming year we have
got a variety of initiatives we want to undertake, and working
cooperatively with you and the new Secretary of Agriculture,
Ann Veneman, because of her role with the Forest Service, I
think can be most helpful in terms of, in quantum leaps toward
reducing conflict, and most importantly bringing about
productive management policies.
Thank you.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Norton.
It is great to see you again today. I have a couple of
questions that I do not think have been covered by the
committee that I would like to understand your general views
on, and then some specifics to those.
The first is the 1872 mining law, and obviously there has
been quite a bit of debate throughout the last couple of years
on possible changes to that. Obviously, we allow prospectors to
stake claim on public land and obtain for a fee a title to
that, so there have been several attempts by Congress to reform
the mining law, so I do not know if you have general views on
the 1872 mining law and proposed changes that you would like to
see.
Ms. Norton. The 1872 mining law, as you know, clearly forms
a large part of the history of the West, and Colorado, that has
a mining background, is something that has seen the development
of that.
When I was in college I took a course on mining law, or
mining history of Colorado, and we went to all of the various
old mine sites and explored those. Today, we also want to see
some balance with environmental protection, and I know that
Congress has several times in the past struggled with the
question of how those issues can be reconciled, how we protect
our environment, how we prevent problems like the Summitville
situation that occurred in Colorado, and I would be happy to
work with you in trying to find those kinds of solutions.
At this point I do not have any particular proposals or
particular ways in which I think those ought to be reconciled,
and I would be open to working with you and with other members
of the committee as Congress makes those types of decisions.
Senator Cantwell. If I can be a little more specific on
that issue, in this past year the Bureau of Land Management
published the final 3809 rule as it related to regulating
surface mining on public lands, and since the 1872 law claims
no provisions for environmental protection these rules were
essential for protecting the natural resources on public lands.
As Secretary of the Interior, what will be your position on
these rules, and will you ensure that they remain in place?
Ms. Norton. Certainly we do want to see that there are
appropriate environmental protections on the public lands. It
is my understanding that those regulations were very
controversial, that the National Academy of Sciences had done a
study that recommended a different course of action. I would
look to study the existing regulations. As I go into office I'm
not yet familiar with those regulations, and so at this point
in time I can't really express an informed opinion about those
regulations. I would look forward to becoming familiar with
them.
Senator Cantwell. So are you saying that you would seek
changes in them because of what you have heard so far?
Ms. Norton. Thank you for clarifying. I do not yet have an
opinion about what course of action we would follow. I just
have not studied those regulations I do not know the content of
those regulations.
Senator Cantwell. Do you think there needs to be
administrative rules on environmental protection for the 1872
mining law?
Ms. Norton. You're asking essentially a legal question, and
I don't know the answer to that. As a policy matter I think it
is appropriate for the Federal Government to look at
regulations to ensure that an appropriate level of regulation
is in place, because we do want to see mining take place, when
it does, in a way that is compatible with protection of our
environment and I will work to be sure that we are doing
mining, when it is appropriate, in such a way, but at this
point in time I don't know whether those regulations embody
that or exactly what the situation is with those.
Senator Cantwell. And just so I can be clear for the
record, you are not saying you will oppose them, either. You
are just saying you do not have a position.
Ms. Norton. You're correct. I'm essentially saying I do not
yet have a position on those, and it's my understanding also
that I think there may be some litigation with those, and so
it's not appropriate for me to state an opinion, and at this
point I do not have a formed opinion.
Senator Cantwell. But again, if they have been part of the
Administrative Procedures Act and adopted as rules, as
Secretary of the Interior you would have to uphold those rules.
Ms. Norton. I would follow whatever the legal requirements
are.
Senator Cantwell. Okay. If I could change to another
subject, and I do not think this has been covered in depth. I
am sorry, Mr. Chairman, if it has. On tribal sovereignty,
obviously this is an important issue for the tribes of the
Northwest. Can you describe your views in general on tribal
treaties, and the basis for tribal sovereignty and your views
on those treaties?
Ms. Norton. Yes. As a general matter, first of all I start
with my own experience in working with Colorado's tribes, and
we have worked together on first of all the negotiation of a
gaming compact. I was one of the negotiators in working with
our two tribes in Colorado, the Southern Utes and the Ute
Mountain Tribe, on dealing with their compact issues and from
that we developed a working relationship that extended on to
other issues as they came up.
I have a great deal of respect for our tribes, and I have
that same level of respect for the other tribes of America. My
philosophy overall is that decisions are best made when they
are made closest to the people, and the people who are most
impacted by those are involved in their decisionmaking. That
carries to the tribes themselves, that self-government is
something that is very important, is very appropriate for them
to be able to make decisions on those issues that impact them.
The Department of the Interior has a trust responsibility,
and I take seriously that trust responsibility in recognition
of the independent ability of the tribes to make decisions for
themselves. I will try to work to have that right balance in
fulfillment of our role. I look forward to working with the
tribes and dealing with the issues that are raised by the
relationship between the tribes and the Federal Government.
Senator Cantwell. I cannot quite----
Chairman Bingaman. I think you are out of time.
Senator Cantwell. The lighting does not quite reflect that
from here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
final questions relative to Outer Continental Shelf, and they
relate to the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that the Minerals
Management Agency is contemplating another series of leases,
beginning in March of 2002.
One of my concerns, and it goes to the questions that were
raised by Senator Murkowski, is that the law under which those
leases are granted postpones until after the lease many of the
most significant environmental questions. For instance, site-
specific environmental impact statements do not occur until
after the lease is granted.
Compatibility with the State's coastal zone management plan
does not occur until after the lease is granted, so you have a
situation of a company which has paid a substantial amount of
money to secure a lease, and then they request a permit to
develop that lease, such as a drilling permit, and they
encounter this delay because of the appropriate environmental
reviews. It seems to me that it would make more sense to try to
do as much of that at the front end and, if there is a site
that is found to be inappropriate for environmental reasons,
you do not grant the lease in the beginning.
As Senator Murkowski suggested, the current process also
puts the Federal Government in considerable financial risk,
because you have companies who assume they have got a vested
right which is being denied them because of the environmental
reviews.
All of that background is to say, would you consider
withholding of the offer of new leases for this next 5-year
period that begins March 2002 until Congress has had an
opportunity to review the law and possibly consider
modifications which would, in fact, try to put these
environmental reviews at chapter 1 and not chapter 5 or 6 of
the lease, and therefore avoid some of the problems that we are
currently facing?
Ms. Norton. That certainly raises a very interesting
question. I'm afraid I do not have a basis for yet having
formed an opinion on that, but I would be happy to learn more
about it.
Senator Graham. I look forward to pursuing that with you,
Ms. Norton, and let me just clarify one of my earlier questions
that I asked about your position on whether areas that are
currently subject to a moratorium be included in this next 5-
year plan that begins March of next year.
I did not mean to suggest that the Minerals Management
Service was recommending that, but rather that I suspected,
based upon a letter, that the industry would be urging that the
sites be included in the 5-year plan and that you are going to
be the point of pressure for that industry interest, and I was
very pleased, therefore, that you indicated that, as President-
elect Bush has previously indicated, you would support a
continuation of the moratorium on leasing in those areas
adjacent to California and Florida which are currently
prohibited.
Ms. Norton. President-elect Bush has made his position
clear, and I certainly am supportive of that.
Senator Graham. I would like, in my remaining time, to
start some questions on the National Park System, beginning
with funding. During the campaign, President-elect Bush
indicated his intention to focus funds on the maintenance
backlog at the National Park Service. That was very good news.
I would like to indicate that in my opinion the funding crisis
facing the National Park System goes considerably beyond the
maintenance backlog. There are also significant operational
issues and resource protection issues.
I would just suggest, if you would, visit a place like
Ellis Island National Park and look at the kind of problems
that exist there, or in State, Biscayne National Park. What
would be your position on looking at those operational needs
and resource management needs that also are going to require
significant additional resources?
Ms. Norton. One of the highlights of my time at the
Department of the Interior when I was associate solicitor was
visiting Ellis Island as their visitor's center was under
construction, and being able to see the plans being put into
place for facilities there, and it is a very special part of
our history.
I have not had the opportunity to visit some of the other
areas, but look forward to seeing what we can do to improve
both the maintenance and the operational budgets for those
parks. It is very important to President-elect Bush, and very
important to me that we take care of our important national
treasures, and that requires that we put the money into the
park service budget to be able to appropriately manage and
appropriately restore those important places.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and Ms.
Norton, again, thank you for being here. We do not agree on all
issues, but one would expect that to be the case. I think you
have made a good presentation to this committee, but I want to
be candid with you about something. I think you are highly
intelligent, very capable. I mentioned James Watt yesterday
during my questioning, and I did that deliberately. You and I
have talked about James Watt in the meeting we had in my
office. Both in style and substance I felt that his tenure here
in Washington was destructive, rather than productive, and if I
felt for a minute that there was anything close to that in what
you would bring to the Interior Department, I could not in any
way cast a positive vote for you.
Now, you have worked for him for some while and have been
associated with him, and I know you admire him, but I just want
to say that to you because I felt so strongly--I was here in
the U.S. House at the time. I felt so strongly his approach was
so destructive, and in fact working together we can be
productive. Democrats, Republicans, people who do not agree,
can come together and be productive, and that style was in my
judgment very destructive, and so I want to say that to you,
even as I say I think you are highly intelligent and capable. I
think you have made an awfully good presentation to this
committee yesterday and today.
Now, let me, having said that, give you an opportunity to
answer some questions, because all of us are getting material
from everybody, people who think you are wonderful, and there
are a lot of them, including people in my State and Democrats
who I feel good about in my State, but there are people who
think that you ought not to be confirmed. Let me read a couple
of things and just ask you to respond to them, because they are
on the record, they are in the papers, and I want you to be
able to respond to them.
Before that, let me ask one question on behalf of the
tribal chair in North Dakota. He says, it is our understanding
that Ms. Norton advocated an honorarium on placing land into
trust on behalf of Indian tribes. Is this true? I was asked to
inquire about that.
Ms. Norton. I have not taken a position on the issue of
placing lands into trust, and I know that is a significant
issue, and that there are a number of decisions about that
pending at the Department, but I have not had the opportunity
to study any of those. For the most part I think that is a
decision that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Dorgan. You have taken no position at this point?
Ms. Norton. That is correct.
Senator Dorgan. Some question the instinct--I think Senator
Wyden talked a little bit about it--the instinct of being
perfectly willing to go after the Federal Government but not
quite so interested in going after private polluters, and the
material that some of your critics would give us, the Denver
Post editorial that responds to it.
Globeville residents hired their own lawyers to strengthen
the weak clean-up from Norton's efforts. The State testified
against the residents in the lawsuit, refused to clean up
polluting powerplant so the Sierra Club had to do so. Citizens
and the Feds went after Louisiana Pacific after Norton refused
to; Norton's office refused to take on Conoco.
I mention all of that to you only because that part of the
material that comes on the negative side with respect to the
Norton nomination, and if this were all accurate it would tell
me the instinct does not exist to say, all right, wherever
pollution exists, public or private polluters, Federal
Government, or big corporations, I am going to be aggressive, I
am going after them.
Give me your sense of that. Are these criticisms just off
the mark? Are these folks all wet?
Ms. Norton. One of the patterns that exist in several of
the criticisms is that something happened and then eventually
somewhere down the line was a Federal prosecution, with the
idea that nothing happened in between, and what that misses is
the tremendous amount of work that people on my staff invested
in trying to deal with those problems.
There are several of the cases that you cited where people
on my staff put in years of work in trying to bring polluters
to justice, in trying to solve problems. They worked with the
State Health Department in trying to get companies to follow
the law, and when those companies did not follow the law they
worked to take action against them.
We brought together, and I was the impetus for creating a
cooperative Federal, State, and local task force to deal with
environmental crimes in Colorado. As a result of that, we
looked at who was best equipped to go after a particular
situation. Sometimes that was the local district attorney,
sometimes it was my office, sometimes it was the Federal
agencies, but just because the people who ultimately got the
credit were the Federal agencies doesn't mean my office wasn't
involved. The dedicated people on my staff put in many hours of
work, many years of work on those cases, and it disturbs me
that they are not getting credit for the tremendous work that
they did on these issues.
Senator Dorgan. If I might just ask you to respond to this.
In the newspaper it said, even some Republicans are troubled by
the record. Martha Marks, head of Republicans for Environmental
Action, said that a rival group created by Ms. Norton and
others in 1997 was financed by mining, timber, chemical, oil,
and coal companies. Valid criticism?
Ms. Norton. It's my understanding that the group that is
headed by Martha Marks did not even endorse President-elect
Bush in his campaign for President.
I worked initially with an organization that was designed
to point out the many environmental accomplishments of
Republicans. One of the things we did was survey Republican
Governors to look at their brownfields programs, their ways of
trying to protect endangered species on lands within the
States, their programs for improving on the ways in which we
dealt with pollution within the States, and to bring that
information together and to highlight that.
The effort was one that was intended to show that there are
good, creative, innovative ideas being done in the States,
there are programs that Republican members of Congress were
supporting that were adopted by Congress, and to highlight
those kinds of things, and that was the effort of the group. I
am not really associated with that group at this point in time,
but it is an effort that I helped launch.
Senator Dorgan. Ms. Norton, you have, I think, made a good
presentation in the last 2 days and done so with great skill,
and I appreciate it.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you very much. That concludes the
third round of questions, and I would intend that we start a
fourth round and see if there are other questions by members
that still need to be asked in this session and, if not, allow
members to file any additional questions by 5 o'clock, as I
indicated before.
I had two or three other questions I wanted to ask. Last
year this committee spent a lot of time, a couple of weeks, on
legislation to provide full funding for the land and water
conservation fund, and that would be at the authorized level of
$900 million. Would you support and recommend continued full
funding of this land and water conservation fund? Do you think
that needs to be a priority?
Ms. Norton. President-elect Bush has made clear that one of
his goals is full funding of the land and water conservation
fund, and through the Department we would work to put that goal
into place. He wants to see that the States' portion of that
funding is available so that States can work toward preserving
areas within their States that they see as appropriate in
addition to the Federal efforts.
Chairman Bingaman. Also, the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act, CARA, which was debated here extensively, provided for
dedicated funding for several other conservation programs,
wildlife conservation, historic preservation, coastal
conservation, urban parks, and conservation easements. Do you
support the goal that was in that bill of having annual funds
committed for those kinds of conservation programs?
Ms. Norton. I certainly support the general goal, as I
understands it. We will be looking at the particular budgetary
issues and studying that budget as it comes up and look forward
to working with you as we flesh out how that would actually be
carried forward.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you. This article I referred to in
the Wall Street Journal yesterday had a portion of it here
where it said that some of your friends--it refers to a
gentleman with the Competitive Enterprise Institute who is
urging market-based ideas to be incorporated into the
Department.
One idea mentioned here is to turn over Federal land for
management experiments by States and private groups to help
solve the chronic staffing shortages in the Bureau of Land
Management. Spelunking groups could help run scenic caves,
mountain-climbing groups, he suggested, could take over the
management of certain designated ridge tops, off-road motor
cyclists could be assigned some areas.
Obviously, I think there are some dangers involved with
turning over management of public lands to private groups such
as that. I guess my question would be, as the Secretary of the
Interior, would you be a strong advocate for adequate funding
for the various Federal land management agencies, the BLM in
this particular case, so that we would not even get to the
discussion about whether we ought to be assigning
responsibility for management to some of these private groups?
Ms. Norton. I believe public-private partnerships are
something that should be used to serve our public lands. In
Colorado we have had a lot of experience with the State and
with local governments working with private organizations to be
able to further public goals and I found, as I was looking
through my materials in preparation for this, that the
Department of the Interior has benefitted from 90,000
volunteers helping with our parks and our refuges and so forth.
And that is a very important resource for us to be able to
use, that is more employees than the Department has, people who
are willing to help out with preservation of our resources, so
I want to use that. I do not want to just turn things over and
to neglect our responsibilities. As a Federal agency we need to
ensure that we are exercising the appropriate Federal oversight
role and ensuring that everything is done properly.
We also ought to explore the ways of magnifying our ability
to care for our lands by using those other people who are also
enthusiastic about those lands.
Chairman Bingaman. Let me just mention one other subject.
Last year, Congress passed a bill that Senator Campbell and I
sponsored called the Indian Land Consolidation Act. This was
designed to deal with the problem of Indian allotments, the
interests that Indians, individual Indians have, that they have
not been able to develop those lands because of such a
fractionated ownership and pattern.
I would just call that to your attention. If this
legislation is going to be successful in clearing up any of
this for the Indian owners of that land, we are going to have
to have the support of the Secretary of the Interior in the
implementing of the law and in the funding of the effort to do
this, so I call that to your attention.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with
you on that.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the
nominee relative to the point that the chairman brought up with
regard to CARA--and as you know, that was something that this
committee worked on. I worked with Senator Landrieu in the
committee and Representative Young in the House worked on this
legislation, and we finally drafted a kind of a left-handed
CARA-light compromise that funded it at about $1.6 billion.
However, the Department of the Interior led us to believe
that the allocation levels would be a little different than
what they are indicating they are now, so there is some
discrepancies, and I would ask you, when you have time,
assuming you are confirmed, that you would review the
allocations so we can get a better understanding of where the
differences are. Is that fair enough?
Ms. Norton. I would be happy to examine that.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. I noted for the
record the so-called tobacco report card which I have before
me, and it cites specifically that Colorado and North Dakota
and Washington took the lead in negotiations that led up to the
1998 settlement and they highlight your contribution and
activity in this area and it says, then-Colorado Attorney
General Ms. Norton was a critical player in the negotiations
from the beginning, and it goes with further accolades as to
your contribution, and I would suggest this be included in the
record, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. We will be glad to include that in the
record.
Senator Murkowski. The Park Service recently made a
decision to install photo radar cameras on the George
Washington Parkway. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Norton. No, I wasn't.
Senator Murkowski. Well, if you are driving over 55 miles
in a 50-mile zone the cameras will take a picture of your
license plate and deliver you a speeding ticket in the mail. I
am not going to debate the merits of that, but it is rather
curious, and we talk about State's rights here, and you are
going to be--you are seen as a protector of State's rights.
Now, I am not sure that the Park Service should be using
cameras in Virginia where the Virginia Governor vetoed a bill
that would have allowed photo radar. If you have not looked
into this matter I would suggest you prepare yourself, because
it is a legitimate State's rights issue, and who has the
authority, the State of Virginia, or the Federal Government? I
would be interested in having your determination of that.
Senator Craig. Frank, that really does sound like Big
Brother's watching.
Senator Murkowski. Well, obviously, Big Brother is
watching. Like many national parks, our Denali National Park,
which is the number 1 tourist destination in our State, is
struggling to accommodate an increasing number of visitors. The
single road access into the park is a disaster waiting to
happen.
We only let buses in there for the most part. If you have
not taken that bus ride it starts at 4 o'clock in the morning.
You get back about 9 or 10 o'clock at night, and it is
beautiful, magnificent, but it can scare the hell out of you. I
would ask that you assure me that you will seek to review
visitor access to the number 1 tourist destination in our
State, Denali, and try and give us some assurances as to how
the Park Service is going to meet its obligation to handle the
visitors.
Unfortunately, outside the park we have got a strip mall
now because of the concentration of access in one area, and it
just simply cannot work.
Lastly, and I think that I can wind my questions up here
with asking--and this is to alleviate some of the concerns of
my good friend from Oregon, Senator Wyden--with regard to the
availability of the executive summary on the potential of oil
production from the coastal plain of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, and this is May 2000 and I would provide
these, of course, to all members, but this report was requested
by this committee in a letter dated March 10, and the request
asks the Energy Information Administration to develop a
plausible scenario for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
development consistent with the most recent U.S. Geological
Survey, and so this is very timely.
The report contains an environmental assessment,
projections of future daily production rates using USGS
resource estimates. The coastal plain study includes 1\1/2\
million acres of ANWR, and 92,000 acres of Alaska Native
Inupiat lands, and State of Alaska off-shore lands out of the
3-mile limit which are expected to be explored and developed if
and when ANWR is authorized for development.
The coastal region, which comprises approximately 8 percent
of the 19-million acre ANWR area, is along the geologic trend
that is productive in the Prudhoe Bay area 60 miles West.
It goes on to say, and I quote, ``this is the largest
unexplored potential productive on-shore base in the United
States.'' The 1002 area is now closed to exploration and
development. The USGS made the following estimates in 1998 of
technical recoverable oil and natural gas liquids from the ANWR
coastal plain, and mind you, this is old data.
There is nothing current because there has not been any
exploration allowed, but the estimate is that a 95-percent
probability, that is 19 in 20 chances, that there is at least
5.7 billion barrels, a 5 percent probability, 1 in 20, that at
least 16 billion barrels of oil can be recovered. That is equal
to what we would import from Saudi Arabia over a 30-year
period, and thirdly, the mean expected value estimate is 10.3
billion barrels of recoverable oil.
But you know as well as I do that oil is where you find it,
and where you look for it you usually do not find it, but the
likelihood, according to the geology, suggests that you will
very likely find it in this area.
By comparison, the total 1998 U.S. proved reserves of crude
oil were estimated to be 21 billion barrels, and the 1993
estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable oil for the
on-shore lower 48 States was about 23 million barrels. EIA
postulated yearly development rates of the resources without
specifying the efforts of various levels of oil prices and
technological advances.
In any event, the estimates are as follows: low and high
ANWR yearly development rates ranging from 250 to 800 million
barrels per year. Projected ANWR peak production ranged from
650 to 1.9 million barrels per day across the six cases, and I
could go on nd on, but I think it is appropriate to recognize
that we do have a current study done by the Clinton
administration Energy Information Agency, which is an objective
agency, and I would encourage my colleagues to read it, and I
would ask the staff to give Senator Wyden the first copy.
Senator Wyden. I have it.
Senator Murkowski. We have already given it to you?
Senator Wyden. We have.
Senator Murkowski. We work quickly. Thank you.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Norton, I have one last question with regard to this
matter of enforcing environmental laws, and it revolves again
around what happened in Colorado, where you said you were
unable to defend that affirmative action program.
In the Rocky Mountain News, July 20, 1997, you said, in
your words, that it was rare to have someone in effect beg off
carrying out a particular case like that. My last question to
you is, are there any rare instances that you can foresee, as
Secretary of the Interior, where you would not enforce a
Federal environmental law?
Ms. Norton. The situation that you address was a fairly
unique one, because it was a question of determining what the
constitutionality was of a State program and I had already
issued some opinions that became public in a related situation,
and the arguments that the State would need to make in
defending the program in question would have been different
than the ones that I was already on record with.
Senator Wyden. That is what you said yesterday, but you
described your conduct as rare, and I appreciate that. What I
want to know is, do you foresee any rare instances, if
confirmed, where you would be unwilling to enforce a Federal
environmental law?
Ms. Norton. I do not foresee any situations where I would
not be enforcing the Federal laws. As Secretary of the
Interior, my responsibility is to enforce those laws, and I
would take very seriously that responsibility.
Senator Wyden. I appreciate the answer. Let me also,
because I have obviously had a number of pointed questions
during the course of these hearings, express my thanks to you
for your answer to Senator Craig on the county payments bill.
As you know, that is a very contentious issue. Both of us
took a lot of flak to try to write the bill. I had
environmental groups running ads with me embracing chain saws
because I wanted to try to come out with a creative new
approach in this area, and I think the question Senator Craig
asked about implementing it and your willingness to work with
us is welcome.
My question, however, is, given the stress that was placed,
and appropriately so, on collaboration, can you give the
committee another specific example of an issue where you
basically like to try to bring people together and prevent a
train wreck? That is what the two of us did on this question of
the relationship between timber harvest and payment to
counties. It should have been done several decades ago, when
the spotted owl fight began, because you could have prevented a
train wreck there.
Give us, if you would, one specific example of where you
would like to try to bring people together, foster this
collaboration, and prevent a train wreck in the natural
resources area.
Ms. Norton. In so many different land management issues
that is going to be appropriate, and it is difficult for me to
say that in such-and-such a county, such a State----
Senator Wyden. I am talking about a general problem. We
dealt with a relationship of timber harvest to pay for the
schools and roads, and there was tremendous concern that there
was an incentive to harvest more just to help the schools and
roads.
Senator Craig and I got in the middle of this and settled
it so that, in effect, we had a balanced approach and brought
these warring camps together, and I would like to see if, in a
policy area, there is another train wreck that you would like
to try to prevent, given the fact that you have probably used
the word collaboration 50 times or more in the course of these
hearings, and if you could give us a specific example of an
area where you would like to foster it on your watch.
Ms. Norton. I would say one specific area would be in
dealing with the endangered species habitat. There are a number
of species where the States have tried to come up with recovery
plans and work with local officials in coming up with those. I
would like to see what we can do to go beyond just the pure
enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, which, of course, I
would do, but really try to find ways to restore endangered
species, and to be able to do that you need to have the active
involvement and support of many different people.
Senator Wyden. So you would be willing to bring together
environmentalists, people from the timber industry, a variety
of sectors, to work particularly on the question of a
collaborative approach to dealing with habitat under the ESA?
Ms. Norton. Yes, I would.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Gale, in your home State last year we put
together the Upper Colorado collaborative effort on issues of
fisheries and brought those together, and that is one you are
obviously going to be involved in in the future as that works
its will. The good news is, I do not have any more questions,
Mr. Chairman. I do have some closing remarks, and I will make
them when everyone completes their questions.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The good news is I
just have a few remaining questions. The chartering act of the
National Park System sets this as our standard of stewardship.
It says that we shall leave each of the parks, quote,
``unimpaired for future generations.'' With that as the
standard, let me outline what I think are some of the
challenges that the park system is going to be faced with in
the next period, and ask what you believe these challenges will
entail in terms of resources and possibly changes in park
policy.
The population of the United States as of the year 2000 was
approximately 275 million. According to the Census Bureau, the
population of the United States in the year 2100 is estimated
to be 571 million, so we are going to have more than a doubling
of the population of the country.
There will be other changes as well. One is that more of
that population will be urban and assumedly will want to have
access to an outdoors experience. No. 2, it is going to be an
older population. Today, the population in the United States
approximately 11 to 12 percent is over the age of 65. Within
the next 30 years it will be almost 18 percent over 65. It will
also be less traditional.
For instance, today the population of nonwhite Hispanics in
the United States is 71.4 percent. By the year 2100 that will
drop to 40 percent. The Hispanic population will comprise one
third of the population of the United States in the year 2100.
What do those kind of demographic changes on one of the
institutions which is most significant in our national culture,
the National Park System, say to you about the kind of policy
and resource challenges that the park system is going to be
faced with in the immediate future to get ready for that longer
horizon future?
Ms. Norton. The parks are a tremendous resource, and should
be accessible to people. We need to look at each of the parks
and determine how best we can marry together the preservation
of the resources that we want to preserve for the very long
term and the ability of the American people to enjoy those
parks.
The accessibility of park resources to those who are
elderly or handicapped is an important consideration, and there
are things we can do in many of our parks to make that more
available and more accessible. It is a wonderful challenge and
a wonderful opportunity to be able to look at the resources
available to us and to try to find ways to allow those
resources to be best available for people to enjoy.
One of the other things that I'm enthusiastic about as part
of President-elect Bush's platform is the ability to provide
Federal money through the land and water conservation fund to
States to address, not through the National Park System
specifically, but through each State's own individual planning
to have recreation areas and to have open space areas that are
available to serve the people of our urban areas.
It is wonderful to have the parks I love in the West, but
those are not as accessible to people in the urban areas of the
East. The Department of the Interior mission I think needs to
expand towards having an eye toward helping States and local
governments provide resources that will serve all of the people
of America.
Senator Graham. I am very encouraged by what you just said.
I think we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the national
parks are somewhat the capstone of a larger system to provide
outdoor and recreational experiences for our people, and that
that system is interrelated.
For instance, if there are inadequate State or local parks
to provide more active recreation there will be pressure on the
national parks to be providing that opportunity, which could
lead to the detriment of the national parks' primary mission,
which is resource experiences and protection.
That is why I think the CARA bill that Senator Murkowski
and Senator Bingaman referred to earlier is so important. It
was the mechanism by which we could provide some reliable
sustained and more or less efficient Federal participation in
integrated local-State-national effort to begin to meet our
current and particularly these enormous future needs that we
are going to have for outdoor recreation and the protection of
critical national resources, so I very much appreciate your
eloquent statement to that effect and, should you be confirmed,
that would be an area which I am certain this committee, and I
would offer myself specifically, would be very interested in
working with you towards achieving.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank
you for your indulgence on these important questions as they
relate to the country, but obviously to our unique regions as
well.
If I could turn to--and I am not sure how much you have
commented on NEPA, but I mentioned yesterday that I joined the
committee as a long line of representatives from the Northwest.
I think we have had, as I have said, for the last 50 years all
but 5 years in which someone from the Northwest was not on this
committee, and one of my predecessors, Scoop Jackson, was
chairman of the committee for a great number of years and
actually was the author of the National Environmental
Protection Act.
So as I look at the year ahead and what changes--I know
that you have made comments on NEPA. In fact, part of your
testimony before the House Resources Committee a couple of
years ago, you stated that, start the devolution of authority
in the environmental area back to the States by amending NEPA.
Specifically, Congress should require that agencies consult at
an early stage with State and local governments in developing
environmental impact statements. It should be clear in NEPA
that an environmental impact statement is not adequate if it
does not address fully the State and local concerns.
If confirmed, are you going to advocate for amendments to
NEPA, that is my first question, and if so, what specific
amendments would you pursue?
Ms. Norton. Thank you for that question and the opportunity
to talk about that issue. I believe the environmental impact
statement process and the idea that the Federal agencies ought
to examine the environmental impact of their actions is
something that is quite important. We were talking earlier
about the endangered species in the Colorado River, and that
really was a tragic example of Federal agencies working to
eradicate a fish species that a few years later we decided we
needed to be putting in huge efforts to try to restore, because
they eradicated them so fully they were endangered now.
That is the kind of thing that in the history now of having
NEPA in place I believe we have often prevented from occurring,
and that is what that function ought to be. I am not sure
whether the issues that I expressed as a State Attorney General
are going to be the same views that the Federal administration
will choose to pursue, but I certainly would like to see from a
personal perspective the idea that the States having a more
active role in the NEPA process take place.
It may be possible to do some of those, or to accomplish
some of the same results through an informal process of working
together between the States and the Federal agencies without
formal amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Senator Cantwell. So at this point you are not saying
whether you propose amendments?
Ms. Norton. At this point I do not have any specific
proposals for changes to the National Environmental Policy Act
and, frankly, there are many, many things that are going to be
on my agenda for dealing with the Department of the Interior
issues, and I anticipate that those are the things that will
really be occupying my time.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. So just one follow-up on that,
because there is obviously a very prime purpose for NEPA, and
that is to provide the public with pre-decision information
about the environmental impacts, and so you do believe that is
an important process to NEPA?
Ms. Norton. I certainly do believe it is important to
provide the public with all of the best scientific information
that we can acquire for making environmental decisionmaking. I
am absolutely committed to the idea that the decisionmaking
should be based on the best science, on the best analysis of
environmental issues that we can find and, as Secretary of the
Interior, would anticipate, if I am confirmed, trying to be
sure that our decisions are really made in a fully informed way
with full public participation.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. My time is almost up, but I
did want to ask, on 3809 regulations, I think it is believed by
the Department of the Interior that they are consistent with
the National Academy of Sciences. You said earlier you did not
think they were consistent with that study.
Ms. Norton. This is an issue that, of course, I want to
study if I am confirmed. I have heard reports that they are not
consistent, but I don't have any firm basis for that, other
than the third-hand reports, essentially, that I have heard
about those regulations, so I will be happy to form some first-
hand opinions.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bingaman. Thank you very much. I think everyone
who has been here has been able to go through a fourth round of
questions. Senator Craig indicated a desire, before we
concluded the hearing, to make a closing statement. Why don't
you go ahead at this point, then Senator Murkowski, if he has
any additional statement, or anybody else.
Senator Murkowski. It would be your intention, then, that
this would pretty much conclude the hearing?
Chairman Bingaman. I would expect, unless there are some
burning questions that Senator Cantwell wished to present, or
Senator Craig or yourself. There are only four of us here. Did
you have additional questions?
Senator Cantwell. If I do, I believe time is open until 5
o'clock today to submit questions in writing.
Chairman Bingaman. Yes. Questions can be submitted by any
member up until 5 o'clock today for the record, so Senator
Craig, go ahead with any statements you would like to make.
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and
again, Gale, thank you for the time you have spent with us, and
the very frank and forthright way in which you have responded
to our questions.
Yesterday, I think Senator Campbell, who you know well,
opined that he was glad that it was you and not he who had been
selected by President-elect George W. Bush to be
our new Secretary of the Interior. I am quite confident I know
why he said that.
I have watched over the past 2 weeks. You have been
bitterly criticized and broadly characterized. You have become
the subject of banners and a bumper sticker or two. Your
critics have questioned your integrity, your judgment, your
personality, and your views, so I guess my final question to
you is a simple one. Why do you want to be the Secretary of the
Interior of the United States of America?
Ms. Norton. Over these last few weeks I have found myself
occasionally wanting to find some calm in all of the chaos, and
when I do so I think about a place that causes me to feel
serene, and that place is Bear Lake in Rocky Mountain National
Park. It is a beautiful, beautiful place. It's a timeless
place.
The job of Secretary of the Interior is one that, in the
time frame of the Western lands it is a brief instant, but I
would like to play my role in seeing that those areas are
preserved. I want to see that we do the best that we can for
the people of the West and the other people who are affected by
the decisions made here in Washington. I have been privileged
to have worked with many people of many different views over
the last 20 years, and I want to put into effect what I have
learned from all of those many people.
The Department of the Interior is a wonderful place with a
long history. The opportunity to work on the important issues
that the Department of the Interior faces and, most
importantly, the opportunity to be a part of the lands and the
history of that department is something very important to me.
It is an opportunity that, despite the criticism that
inevitably comes to someone who plays this role, I would gladly
go through that in order to be able to play some part in the
important decisions that America will make as to our natural
resources.
Senator Craig. Well, Gale, thank you. I feel very
privileged that I may play a small role in helping you fulfill
that dream and responsibility. Thank you for being with us.
Chairman Bingaman. Senator Murkowski, did you have any
additional questions or statement?
Senator Murkowski. Let me just submit a dozen additional
letters of support, from Eli River Indian Community, to
Kovosack Associates, to the Colorado Cattleman's Association on
behalf of your nomination and I would ask that they be entered
into the record.
Chairman Bingaman. They will be entered into the record.
I would also indicate all the letters of support and
opposition as well that have been received by the committee up
until the end of business today will be included in the record.
Senator Murkowski. Let me compliment you, Senator Bingaman,
and your professional staff on the manner that we have worked
together now that the committee is equal, 10 members on each
side, and with the agreement that our two leaders put together
to encourage an expedited process of the various nominees for
Secretary and the manner that we have been able to work
together collectively on the nominations under our area of
responsibility, the Department of Energy, Spence Abraham
yesterday, and again yesterday and today the Secretary of the
Interior nominee, Gale Norton.
I think it represents an ongoing relationship that we have
had, whether we are in the minority or the majority. I have
been on this committee since the time of the late Scoop
Jackson, and I think the productivity of this committee is
evident in the material that was passed out relative to the
fact that we do an awful lot of activity. We are the highest
ranking committee in the U.S. Senate for productivity, and if
anybody would like to see the charts the staff would be happy
to provide them, and we are going to continue that.
We have got new members, and we have got some contentious
issues. We have got a new administration, but we have
significant responsibilities in the area of the environment, in
the areas of energy, and it is going to call from some
decisions, and we have never shrunk from that responsibility.
So I would, as a consequence of structure of where we are
going to leave off today, call the committee to order as
chairman after the 20th to report out the nomination, subject
to the members' individual opportunities to express themselves
in a vote. I trust that is agreeable with you?
Chairman Bingaman. Yes, that is certainly agreeable. That
would be the logical way to proceed. Thank you very much for
that statement.
Let me thank you, Ms. Norton, very much for your patience
with all committee members and your forthright responses to the
questions. I think we have had a constructive hearing, and
there has been a lot of issues explored, and I, for one, have a
better idea of your views, and I appreciate very much your
willingness to respond, and I will look forward to seeing the
responses you provide the committee to the written questions.
Senator Murkowski. And I would intend to try and canvas the
members as early as possible next week to find a compatible
time that we can report out the nominees, hopefully by Tuesday.
Chairman Bingaman. That will certainly be appropriate. With
that, the committee will stand adjourned until the chairman
calls another meeting. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses to Questions From Senator Akaka
native hawaiians
Question. I am pleased to hear that you intend for American Indian
issues to be a top priority for you as the Secretary of the Interior.
As you know, I have long supported the rights of indigenous peoples on
an international level as well as domestically. I'd like to discuss the
issues involving Hawaii's indigenous peoples.
Public Law 103-150, commonly referred to as the ``Apology
Resolution'' was signed into law in 1993. In summary, the resolution
apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United
States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893,
and calls for reconciliation between the United States and Native
Hawaiians. In 1999, representatives from the Department of the Interior
and the Department of Justice began public consultations with Native
Hawaiians as the first step of this process of reconciliation. On
October 23, 2000, the Departments released a report about the public
consultations with recommendations for additional steps in the
reconciliation process.
The reconciliation process is an incremental process of dialogue
between the United States and Native Hawaiians to resolve a number of
longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of
Hawaii. The Department of the Interior has had the lead in this process
as the agency that deals with indigenous peoples within the United
States jurisdiction. What assurances can you provide regarding the
continuation of this important process between Native Hawaiians and the
United States?
Answer. While I am unfamiliar with the details of the issues
between the United States and Native Hawaiians, if confirmed as
Secretary of the Interior, I will work with all parties to seek
consensus and ensure cooperation throughout the country. I look forward
to learning more about our relationship with Native Hawaiians and
working with you on the reconciliation process.
Question. One of the recommendations from the report released on
October 23, 2000, is the establishment of an office within the
Department of the Interior to focus on issues involving the indigenous
peoples of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians. The office would continue to
facilitate the reconciliation process and would assist Native Hawaiians
in addressing the political and legal relationship between Native
Hawaiians and the United States. What are your thoughts regarding the
implementation of this recommendation?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to read the October 23, 2000
report. I will need to review the report, its recommendations and any
actions that have been taken on this matter more thoroughly before
decide how to proceed.
global warming
Question. As the only island state in the United States, Hawaii is
vulnerable to a number of climate change scenarios. I am particularly
concerned that you have expressed skepticism about the reality of
climate change, and discount the serious threat it poses to the U.S.
and other countries. Satellite data on atmospheric temperatures,
measurements of sea surface temperature, evidence of increasing
concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and continuing sea
level rise indicate that we are in for some changes. Pacific islands
are uniquely vulnerable to many of the potential impacts of climate
change. It is projected that there will be changes in patterns of
natural climate variability (such as El Nino); changes in frequency,
intensity and tracks of tropical hurricanes and typhoons; and changes
in patterns of ocean circulation. Pacific islands are also likely to
experience increased ocean temperatures and changes in sea level
(including storm surges and sustained rise).
Can you share your views on global warming? How will your views
affect the Department of Interior's role in climate change efforts and
interagency cooperation regarding global warming?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony on Thursday, January 18, 2001,
I believe the issue of global warming must be based on the best
possible scientific understanding of the problem. There is a growing
consensus that global warming is occurring at some levels, and that is
my understanding of current science. On the other hand, there is still
substantial research that must be done to determine the causes of the
phenomenon and the appropriate public policy responses to any adverse
effects linked to the problem.
national parks--financing
Question. I was pleased to hear of your ``full support for a strong
national park system'' at our recent meeting. As you know, our national
parks are facing increased visitorship at levels that far exceed
predictions. As a result, infrastructure and utility systems at
national parks are overtaxed, campgrounds are overcrowded, traffic is a
problem, and there is general decay of visitor facilities. In addition
there are 33 new parks since 1987 and a number of unfunded mandates
that draw on the Park Service's funds. The national park system is not
only our domestic crown jewel for investments in public spaces of great
natural beauty and historical significance, but is the best in the
world. I know you would agree that we must not under invest in the park
system of the U.S.
You have said that the way to deal with unfunded mandates is to
reel them back in--to start returning money as well as responsibility
back to states. Do you consider the increasing scope and number of
national park units to be an ``unfunded mandate''? If that is the case,
would you de-authorize or un-fund the new units of the national park
system?
Answer. I agree with you that the National Park System is a crown
jewel among our public spaces. I strongly support the National Park
System and am committed to improving and enhancing it. I do not believe
that the establishment of new park units constitutes an unfunded
mandate in the traditional sense of that term. Nor do I support
deauthorizing or defunding new units of the National Park System.
President Bush pledged to seek increased funding for the National Park
Service to eliminate the backlog of major maintenance and construction
and resource restoration over the next five years. I look forward to
working to fulfill that commitment.
Question. How do you propose to ensure that the Park Service has an
adequate financial base to meet the basic infrastructure demands and
provide quality visitor facilities and interpretation? In addition to
increased appropriations, would you look favorably on such options as
increased user fees and other financial reforms?
Answer. At this time, I am not familiar enough with the
Department's programs to maintain the National Park System to provide
specific recommendations with respect to additional measures that might
be implemented to meet the System's needs. However, I look forward to
working with Congress, the States, user groups, and other stakeholders
to ensure that the National Park System has sufficient resources to
operate and maintain our national Parks and provide adequate services
for the over 270 million annual visitors to the Park System.
Question. During both Republican and Democratic Administrations,
Congress has authorized new parks to conserve our natural and cultural
heritage. In the 106th Congress, four new units were created and
several park expansions authorized, including Great Sand Dunes National
Park in Colorado (sponsored by Members of Colorado's Republican
delegation).
In his statement of September 13, 2000, presidential candidate
George Bush said that ``first priority should be given to maintaining
existing holdings.'' What is your view of the need to continue adding
nationally significant resources to our national park system?
Answer. I support President Bush's statement. The National Park
Service estimates that the backlog for major maintenance and
construction is approximately $4.9 billion. One of my top priorities
will be to seek increased funding for the National Park Service to
eliminate this over the next five years. At this time, I do not have a
separate position with respect to the addition of new park units.
Question. Do you intend to place a limit on recommending new units?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with this issue at this time to
answer this question. I believe generally that the decision about
whether to add a new unit must be made on a case-by-case basis. Any
decision to add a new unit also requires Congressional action. I
support the President's statement that our first priority must be to
maintain the existing units in the National Park System.
Question. Can we afford not to preserve significant resources while
we deal with the backlog issue?
Answer. I recognize the importance of preserving significant
resources whenever possible. However, I also support the President's
statement that our first priority must be to maintain the existing
units in the National Park System.
Question. Are there any types of areas that you believe are not
represented in the park system that deserve further study and analysis?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specific units included
in the National Park System to respond to this question at this time.
national park service--diversity issues
Question. Over the last ten years I have been an advocate for
increased recognition of diversity within national parks. I have
initiated studies for park service units that tell the story of
Japanese-American internment camps, historic and cultural trails in
Hawaii, as well as the story of West Coast immigration, and a bill on
the Peopling of America. I believe that the interpretation of how
America has become a diverse national is important for us all.
How do you think your role can foster a greater appreciation of our
national parks to a wider constituency and broaden the identification
and interpretation of new park units that tell the story of all
peoples?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specific education
programs associated with our National Parks to respond to your question
at this time. However, I share your desire to have our National Parks
represent the diversity of experience and cultures that make our
country unique. I look forward to working with you and the Congress to
broaden the appeal of our National Parks.
endangered species
Question. As you may know, the state of Hawaii has over 300
endangered and threatened species--more than any other state in the
U.S. And twelve more species are being proposed by FWS this week. Yet
our state receives relatively little funding through the federal
Section 6 program and our State funding for endangered species programs
is very small. In 1997 Hawaii enacted State legislation establishing
incentives for private landowners to improve habitats on their
properties. In essence, the measure authorizes the state to enter into
``safe harbor'' agreements with landowners who voluntarily improve
habitats. The State, conservancy groups, and the FWS endorses such
approaches that allow planning on a ``habitat'' level as opposed to a
``species'' level.
Do you believe that there is a federal role in protecting habitat
as part of the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act?
Answer. The Endangered Species Act gives the federal government an
important role in preserving habitat for endangered and threatened
species. I support programs like the one you have described in Hawaii
to encourage private landowners to preserve habitat for species.
Question. What steps would you take to encourage habitat-wide
planning for conservation of endangered species on private lands?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to work with the States and
landowners to use tools like habitat conservation plans, State
Candidate Conservation Agreements, and Safe Harbor Agreements to help
save species and their habitat.
Question. Would you support the current initiatives to work with
landowners on Habitat Conservation Plans that include ``safe harbors''
and ``no surprises'' agreements?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Would you support new programs and increased funding for
state and community-based conservation and education programs for
endangered species, provided to states with the greatest number of
endangered species issues?
Answer.I am not familiar enough with the formula for distributing
section 6 funds to the States to respond to your question about
allocation of federal funds. I look forward to working with you, the
Congress, and any other interested stakeholder in identifying new
programs or tools that could be used to recover endangered species.
insular areas
Question. President Clinton established the Interagency Group on
Insular Areas (IGIA) by Executive Memorandum on August 9, 1999. The
memorandum states that ``the IGIA shall work with the Secretary of the
Interior to identify issues concerning American Samoa, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands,'' to
make recommendations to the President concerning Federal Government
policies and programs affecting these areas.
Do you plan to continue the IGIA process or will you propose an
alternative approach to improving federal-territorial relations to
include the White House?
Answer. Based on my current limited familiarity with IGIA, it
appears that until a better approach is developed to improve federal-
territorial relations, the IGIA offers the best means to coordinate
federal policies and programs concerning the territories.
Question. Because of the geographic locations of most of the
territories and their non-inclusion in national policies, the
territories often do not share in the economic prosperity of the
nation. The unemployment rates in the territories are in the double
digits. As the Secretary of the Interior, what actions can you take to
assist the economies of the insular areas?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the economies of the
territories to be able to make specific recommendations at this time.
However, I look forward to visiting the territories and meeting with
their respective leaderships to work towards improving the unemployment
rate now in existence. I plan to ask for a meeting with the
territories' representatives in the Congress to help determine the
array of options that are available to the Secretary to assist in
economic development.
Responses to Questions From Senator Bayh
Question. You have, in the past, advocated a broader interpretation
of takings law than has been adopted by the Supreme Court.
Specifically, you have written that economic liberties have not been
adequately recognized in the courts. For instance, you have suggested
recognition of a ``homesteader's right to pollute.'' Can you elaborate
on your current thinking on what types of regulatory action constitute
a ``taking'' of private property and when compensation would be due?
Answer. As I mentioned during my confirmation hearing, I did
academic research on the concept of emissions trading in the early
1980s. At that time, an emissions credit was sometimes referred to as a
``tradeable right to pollute.'' On the assumption that emissions
trading might begin with a recognition of the current emissions level
at various facilities, the initial level of pollution was considered to
be acquired by ``homesteading,'' just as the earliest settlers of land
acquired rights by being the first ones to develop an area. Inherent in
this concept is the idea of starting with the ``homesteaded'' (i.e.,
baseline) level of pollution and trading ``rights to pollute'' (i.e.,
emissions credits) to reduce present or future levels of pollution in
the most economical way. Thus, to me, a ``homesteading right to
pollute'' is one mechanism that lawmakers might select to begin
establishing an emissions trading market, much like the one that
Congress created through the Clean Air Act Amendments. Emissions
trading is one example of the innovative approaches to environmental
issues that I have championed throughout my career.
Unfortunately, this personal understanding of the terminonlogy was
not apparent in my speech that was reprinted in the Harvard Journal.
The speech was never intended to imply an unfettered ``right to
pollute'' as some have interpreted it. The speech was clear, I believe,
in indicating that I was simply describing a range of competing views
regarding property rights and the environment.
I recognize that not every federal action or regulation that
adversely impacts a property owner constitutes a taking under the Fifth
Amendment. The Supreme Court has articulated guidelines setting forth
what constitutes a taking that must be compensated. I support the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the takings clause of the Fifth
Amendment and do not believe that it unduly restricts federal
regulatory activity.
Question. How would these views impact your decisions as Secretary
of Interior?
Answer. I will protect the federal government's interests in its
lands and enforce all environmental and land use laws that apply to the
lands and interest managed by the Department of the Interior.
Question. For example, if a company proposed a mine next to a
national wildlife refuge and there were concerns that the mine would
negatively impact the refuge (e.g., create hydrological problems), how
would you proceed? Would you oppose the mine and call for federal, as
well as state, environmental permits for the project? Would denial of
the permit be a compensable taking?
Answer. While the actions to be taken in response to your
hypothetical would depend on the particular facts, if confirmed as
Secretary of the Interior, I would expect to examine the legal
authorities available to the Department, coordinate with other federal
agencies, and utilize our powers to appropriately protect federally
owned lands and resources.
The question of when compensation could result from denial of a
permit requires a fact specific analysis based on the U.S. Supreme
Court's guidelines regarding regulatory takings. Generally, the courts
have required that property impacted by regulation must no longer have
any economic use before compensation is required.
Question. In 1980, you coauthored an amicus brief on behalf of the
Mountain States Legal Foundation (Andrus v. Virginia Surface Mining and
Reclamation Association, Andrus v. State of Indiana and Virginia
Surface Mining and Reclamation Association v. Andrus, considered
together) that argued that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act (SMCRA) was unconstitutional because ``land use regulation is
beyond the authority of Congress to regulate as interstate commerce.''
Is this still your view?
Answer. The Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that SMCRA is
constitutional. I support the Court's ruling as the law of the land and
will enforce the law.
Question. You testified that you did not oppose the goals of SMCRA,
but rather the law's ``structure'' or details. Can you be more specific
about the parts of its structure to which you objected?
Answer. I did not oppose the underlying goal of SMCRA to provide
for the environmentally responsible siting, operation, and reclamation
of surface coal mines. The question addressed in the brief was whether
this regulation should be done by the federal government under the
Commerce Clause, or by the State as a type of land use regulation. The
U.S. Supreme Court determined that this was appropriately a federal
function, and I will exercise federal regulatory authority accordingly.
Question. In addition, you testified that you disagreed with the
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act's ``structures'' rather than their goals. Is the
common ``structure'' in these laws a federal determination of
environmental harm or environmental remedy?
Answer. As I stated during the hearing, I support the fundamental
goals of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. I have previously expressed the view
that some aspects of these laws should be vested in State, as opposed
to federal, hands. These are primarily the aspects that do not have an
interstate impact or that assume control over government officials and
resources. I have, however, always recognized an important federal role
as well. For example, the determination of which powers should be
exercised by the States and which by the federal government is
primarily a question for Congress to consider as it designs federal
programs.
Question. Do you agree that there are instances in which a
national, rather than a state-by-state approach to environmental
protection is warranted?
Answer. Yes, see also my answer to the previous question.
Question. Are there instances in which uniformity and certainty
across state lines might lessen the burden of compliance with a
national environmental goal?
Answer. It is certainly possible that in some circumstances uniform
regulations may facilitate compliance with a national environmental
goal. As a State official, I frequently heard businesses request
uniform nationwide rules to facilitate compliance. I sometimes
supported and sometimes opposed these requests.
Question. In 1995, in Babbitt v. Sweet Home, the Supreme Court held
that the Fish and Wildlife Service could prohibit activities that
degraded endangered species' habitat on private land. You coauthored an
amicus brief arguing that the authority of the Secretary of Interior
under the Endangered Species Act did not extend to activities on
private lands. As Secretary of Interior, you would be charged with
protecting endangered species with all the authority given you. Would
you use your authority to protect species habitats on private land?
Answer. The Endangered Species Act prohibits private landowners
from taking endangered species. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted this
to prevent destruction of habitat on private land. As I stated during
the hearing, I am committed to enforcing the Endangered Species Act,
including the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation. In addition, I will
seek to use incentives and other innovative tools to encourage
landowners to preserve habitat for species.
Question. Would you recommend that the Department purchase the
habitats outright or acquire easements?
Answer. I believe that the Department should consider a variety of
options to preserve habitat for species. In some cases, acquisition of
habitat may be appropriate; in other cases, the Department may seek to
obtain easements on privately-owned land. I also support various
innovative tools, such as habitat conservation plans, to preserve
habitat. I believe that the Department should evaluate these and other
options on a case-by-case basis to determine which option will achieve
the best results in any given situation.
Question. Will you request additional funding in the Department's
budget for such acquisitions?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the level of resources that
would be required to fund such acquisitions, or with the potentially
competing needs of the Department, to respond to this question at this
time. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I would look forward
to working with you, and Congressional appropriators, on this issue.
Question. The national park system was created in 1916 ``to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild
life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations. How would you recommend reconciling
the ``conservation'' mandate and the ``enjoyment'' mandate?
Answer. I believe that in managing our National Parks, we can
achieve the appropriate balance between conservation and public access
or enjoyment. I believe that this must be done a Park-by-Park basis,
with input from all interested stakeholders. I am committed to working
with States, local communities, user groups, and the environmental
community to ensure that we achieve that balance at our National Parks.
Question. In its 2001 edition of National Park System Management
Policies, the Park Service states that where there is a conflict
between conservation of resources and providing for enjoyment of them,
conservation should prevail. Do you agree with this policy? Would you
seek to change this policy? [1.4.3]
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the Park Service's policy to
respond to this question. I look forward to reviewing the policy and
would be happy to discuss this you in greater detail at a later date.
Question. In the last Congress, many of us in Congress and on this
Committee [particularly Senator Landrieu, who could not be here today]
worked to enact legislation--the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
[CARA]--that would provide a permanent, stable source of funding for
federal and state Land and Water Conservation fund activities. We will
try again this Congress to enact the CARA legislation. An area of
significant debate was whether federal land acquisition authority
should be subject to blanket limitations, such as a prohibition on
purchases west of the 100th meridian. Others suggested financial
limitations on federal land acquisition authority. Would you recommend
that the Department relinquish existing land acquisition authority in
exchange for guaranteed funding?
Answer. I recognize that CARA was a highly contentious issue in the
last Congress and that it caused sharp divisions among the members of
the Committee. I never took a position on CARA and am unfamiliar with
the details of the legislation at this time to say that the Department
of the Interior should relinquish existing land acquisition authority
in exchange for guaranteed funding. As the final decision on these
matters would lie with Congress, I would be willing to sit down and
discuss this in greater detail with you and other members of Congress
if confirmed as Secretary of the Interior.
Question. Would you recommend any limits or prohibitions on how
states could spend their allocation of Land and Water Conservation Fund
monies?
Answer. President Bush committed to full funding of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, including the state-side grant program. I am
unfamiliar with the details of the state-side grant program to say
whether or not changes should be made to the program.
Question. Although CARA legislation was not enacted in the last
Congress, the Interior Appropriations bill did include $450 million in
a Lands Legacy account for acquisition of lands to be identified by the
Secretary of Interior and approved by Congress. Do you intend to submit
a list of priority acquisition properties?
Answer. I understand that the Conference Report accompanying the
Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 specifies the lands to
be acquired with the $450 million in Federal acquisition money
appropriated last year. As to the fiscal year 2002 budget submission,
President Bush committed to seek full funding of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. It is my intention, if confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior, to handle budget requests for Federal land acquisition money
in a manner agreeable to Congressional authorizing and appropriations
Committees.
Question. Congressman James Hansen has sent a letter to President-
elect Bush that contains a list of regulations he believes the new
Administration and Congress should reverse. The list includes Park
Service snowmobile prohibition regulations, regulations limiting air
tours of the Grand Canyon, reinterpretation of the Park Service's
management policy regarding the dominance of its conservation mandate,
restrictions on personal water craft in the national parks system,
national monument designations and hard-rock mining regulations. There
are many other federal resources protection initiatives mentioned in
the letter. You testified that you would be reviewing those rules and
regulations. What analytical framework do you intend to use to review
these rules and regulations?
Answer. I have not reviewed the Hanson letter or the numerous
regulations and policies that were finalized in the last months of the
Clinton Administration. At this time, I have not developed criteria or
an analytical framework to review these regulations or policies. I
would be happy to discuss this with you further after I have an
opportunity to review the regulations and policies and make an
independent assessment as to whether further action with respect to any
of them is necessary or appropriate.
Question. In other words, how will you determine which policies
should remain in effect and which should be reversed?
Answer. At this time, I do not have a specific set of criteria that
will be used to evaluate regulations and policies. However, if I am
confirmed as Secretary, I would be happy to discuss the process that we
intend to use to determine which policies should remain in effect and
which should be reversed. At a minimum, we will comply with all
applicable federal laws and regulations.
Question. Will collaboration with the affected parties will be part
of your review process?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you intend to enforce the regulations under review in
the interim?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I will comply
with the policy set by the White House with respect to the
implementation of regulations and policies under review. Beyond that,
because I have not yet been confirmed, I have not had an opportunity to
assess what level of enforcement, if any, is appropriate for
regulations or policies under review.
Question. There has been significant discussion about the 19
National Monuments designated by the President under the Antiquities
Act. Do you support statutory changes to the Antiquities Act?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the details of the
designation process under the Antiquities Act to have made an
independent assessment as to whether statutory changes are necessary or
appropriate. At this time, I have not taken a position with respect to
statutory changes. I look forward to learning more about the process
and working with you on any legislative changes that the Congress may
wish to pursue.
Question. Will you recommend adequate funding for the new monuments
in your FY2002 budget proposal or will you recommend a two-tier funding
system for existing monuments and those designated by the Clinton
administration?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the level of resources that
would be required to protect and maintain each of the National
Monuments, or with the potentially competing needs of the Department,
to respond to this question at this time. At this time, I am not aware
of any proposals to recommend a two-tiered funding system for existing
monument. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I would look
forward to working with you, and Congressional appropriators, on the
issue of funding for national monuments.
Responses to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question. Your writings and speeches include many examples of your
support for limited Federal involvement in natural resource issues. If
confirmed, you will be the nation's principal voice for protecting the
Federal areas and wildlife under the Interior Department's
jurisdiction. Can you give us any examples that show a similar passion
for advocating the Federal interests for which you will be responsible?
Answer. As Associate Solicitor of the U.S. Department of Interior,
I worked to uphold federal interests on issues ranging from the
Endangered Species Act (the California Condor species reproduction
project) to habitat restoration (Como Lake restoration project). I
respect federal lands and support strong federal management of its
properties. As Attorney General, I assisted Senator Hank Brown in
resolving difficulties so that Colorado's wilderness bill could be
passed. I also worked to see that the Rocky Mountain Arsenal was
sufficiently cleaned up and urged Congress to create a wildlife refuge
there.
Question. Your published writings have embraced an expansive theory
of the takings clause which would go far beyond guaranteeing just
compensation when property is taken for public use. You have appeared
to support a theory which would severely limit the power of the Federal
(and local) governments to regulate private property. Is this an
accurate description of your views? If so, how does this comport with
your willingness to effectively enforce the various environmental laws
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior?
Answer. I have consistently sought to find a balance between
competing constitutional interests reflected in the Fifth Amendment's
takings clause and Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the
Tenth Amendment. I will protect the federal government's interests in
its lands and enforce all environmental and land use laws that apply to
the lands and interest managed by the Department of the Interior.
Question. In various writings, you have made clear your opinion
that many areas should be the exclusive jurisdiction of the States to
regulate, where the federal government has no right to be. In 1980, you
argued that all land use regulation ``falls outside the commerce power,
and . . . is a traditional function reserved to the states under the
tenth amendment.'' In a 1996 speech, you said the cause of State
sovereignty has ``lost too much'' by the otherwise bad facts of the
civil war, and that States ``need to be able to make their own
decisions.'' As the steward of some of the most nationally significant
and vulnerable federal lands, your comments raise the question of what
role, if any, you see for the federal government in the areas of clean
air, clean water, endangered species habitat protection, and wilderness
preservation. Are there environmental gains made during the last
century that you would be willing to abandon in the name of states
rights and property rights? Why do you feel ``we lost too much?''
Answer. The federal government has an important role to play in
federal land management and national goals of environmental protection.
I will enforce the air, water, wilderness and endangered species
protections embodied in federal law. At the same time, I am willing to
work with states and other constituencies to find balanced and non-
bureaucratic ways to advance environmental goals.
Question. You have testified in support opening the coastal plain
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development.
Outside of areas where oil and gas development is legislatively
prohibited, are there instances in which you believe public lands
should be closed to commercial or industrial development in order to
preserve environmental, scenic, cultural, or historic resources? What
do you believe is the most appropriate balance between protection of
sensitive national resources (such as within a wilderness study area or
national monument) and development of oil or gas or other mineral
resources?
Answer. Appropriate management of public lands, whether for
recreation or energy development, must be done in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. If confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior, I will strive to obtain balanced management of our sensitive
national resources as appropriate.
Question. Last Congress Senator Stevens and Secretary Babbitt
reached a compromise on legislation to phase out commercial fishing
within the inner waters of Glacier Bay National Park. Similarly,
Senator Murkowski and I reached a compromise on legislation (which was
enacted into law) specifying where commercial fishing would be allowed
to continue in the park and where it will be eliminated. Do you support
these agreements?
Answer. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of these agreements.
Nonetheless, if confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I will seek to
fulfill all legislative requirements.
Question. As you know, subsistence uses are not allowed within the
``old parks'' in Alaska, including Glacier Bay and Denali. However,
subsistence uses are allowed in the newer additions to those parks as
well as in other park and preserve areas. What is your opinion as to
whether subsistence uses should continue to be prohibited in the old
park areas?
Answer. I have not taken a position on whether or not subsistence
uses should continue to be prohibited in the old park areas. I
understand that this a complex, legal issue that I would need to review
in greater detail before forming an opinion or deciding how to proceed.
Question. The State of Alaska has filed suit against the National
Park Service claiming that it has jurisdiction to the waters of Glacier
Bay. The United States is defending its interests with the assertion
that the State of Alaska is not entitled to these submerged lands. Do
you agree with the Federal government's position?
Answer. I am unfamiliar with this litigation.
Question. In the past, you have publicly criticized the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Do you see yourself playing a
different role as Secretary? Are there administrative actions that you
plan to pursue with respect to NEPA? If so, what are they?
Answer. In 1998, while Colorado Attorney General, I testified
before the House Resources Committee on implementation of NEPA and
recommended, based on my experience, amendments to NEPA that would
improve the process. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I will
ensure that the Department fully complies with the requirements of
NEPA. At this time, I do not have any administrative actions that I
plan on pursuing with respect to NEPA.
Question. As Secretary, would you request sufficient funds to
enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to complete Endangered Species Act
consultations in a timely manner? If there were a movement in Congress
to freeze staff levels of biologists conducting consultations, would
you support or oppose it?
Answer. The Endangered Species Act establishes a deadline for the
completion of consultations under section 7 for federal actions. I
understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service does not meet the
statutory deadline in the majority of cases. I am not familiar with the
specific causes for this failure and do not know at this time what
additional funding, if any, is needed for staff biologists dedicated to
section 7 consultations. I look forward to working with the Congress to
determine what level of funding is appropriate for the Fish and
Wildlife Service to meet its statutory obligations under section 7.
Question. Do you believe that any of the species currently listed
under the Endangered Species Act as endangered or threatened should not
have been listed? If so, please give examples.
Answer. I do not have any specific information at this time to
conclude that any individual species should not have been listed under
the Endangered Species Act.
Question. During the past Administration, lands of national
conservation importance, including all of the national monuments
designated on BLM lands, were placed under the administration of the
BLM instead of the National Park Service. At the time, the decision by
Secretary Babbitt to keep these lands under the BLM was somewhat
controversial. Do you believe national monuments, conservation areas
and other lands of significant natural and cultural values can be
appropriately managed by the BLM for conservation purposes, or should
would an agency such as the National Park Service be more appropriate?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the situation to respond to
the question. I look forward to working with the Congress and the land
management agencies, to ensure that all public lands are managed
appropriately and consistent with the law.
Question. In recent years the BLM has taken steps to reinventory
certain BLM lands in Colorado and Utah for potential wilderness study
area designation, with respect to lands which were excluded from the
original WSA review conducted under section 603 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act. Do you think this reinventory is
appropriate? In general, will you support a policy of reevaluating BLM
lands for potential future designation as wilderness as a component of
the BLM's land use planning program?
Answer. In general, I support the designation of certain areas as
wilderness areas or wilderness study areas. I believe such designations
should be made in consultation with the States, local communities, and
affected stakeholders. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the BLM's
reinventory and BLM's land use planning program. I would have to review
the current program before deciding how to proceed.
Question. The Forest Service recently completed the Roadless Area
Conservation Rule which prohibits new road construction into
approximately 58 million acres of national forests. The rule does not
affect road construction associated with exploration or development of
leasable minerals that are presently leased. Do you have any thoughts
on the rule as it related to activities under the jurisdiction of the
Interior Department?
Answer. No. The rule does not affect any activities of the Interior
Department as these leases are specifically exempted from the final
rule. I am reluctant to speak to the roadless rule generally because it
was not promulgated by an agency within the Department of the Interior.
Question. The Department of the Interior has deleted the Beaufort
Sea area offshore from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from recent
OCS oil and gas sales to protect the refuge from such adjacent activity
until Congress addresses the future of the 1002 area. Do you agree that
MMS should continue to defer offering oil and gas sales in this area
until Congress addresses the future of the 1002 area?
Answer. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of MMS' action and would
need to review it before deciding how to proceed.
Question. During your tenure as Associate Solicitor for
Conservation and Wildlife at the Department of the Interior, you
unsuccessfully defended an attempt by the Department to deny public
review of the draft oil and gas report required by section 1002 of
ANILCA relative to ANWR. In Trustees for Alaska v. Hodel, the Ninth
Circuit held that the government wrongfully denied the public access to
the 1002 report, an action that would have undermined NEPA's intent to
allow public input before Congress acts. In taking any future actions
regarding the 1002 area and development of ANWR, will you commit to
full and informed public involvement in planned actions of the
Department?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I can assure you
that I will comply with all statutory requirements including those
related to public participation.
Question. During the 107th Congress, the Senate unanimously passed
a bill to implement immigrations reforms in the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (``CNMI''). This Committee has held several
hearings over the years and established a record indicating that
serious problems exist in the CNMI. The current immigration system
administered by the local CNMI government is inconsistent with long-
standing U.S. immigration policy. The most disturbing result of CNMI's
current immigration system is the consistent and increasing
documentation of human rights abuses which alien workers suffer. As
Secretary, will you support our Committee's efforts to enact
legislation that will implement immigration reforms in the CNMI?
Answer. While I am not familiar enough with the CNMI situation to
answer this question with specificity, I will work with the Committee
to make sure the immigration system in place on the CNMI is fair and
workable. I will endeavor to provide the Committee with information to
evaluate appropriate changes.
Question. The General Accounting Office recently issued a report
criticizing the Department of the Interior for insufficient oversight
of assistance to the freely associated states. One problem has been
that the Office of Insular Affairs, within the Department of the
Interior, has not had enough resources or personnel. Are you prepared
to request sufficient levels of funding for this office?
Answer. At this time, I am not familiar enough with the Department
of the Interior's budget to make a determination on the appropriate
level of funding for the Office of Insular Affairs or any bureau within
the Department of the Interior. If confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior, I will seriously evaluate the recommendations of the General
Accounting Office before determining how to proceed.
Question. Within the next ten years, the licenses for over 200
Western hydroelectric projects will be subject to renewal by FERC. The
licensing process is complex, and involves a number of stakeholders
including states, local governments, recreational river users and the
various Federal land management agencies. The Federal agencies,
industry and FERC have been working hard the past several years to
create solutions for resolving delays and other concerns raised by the
relicensing process. Their Interagency Task Force has made significant
progress in developing administrative reforms that will make the
hydropower licensing process more efficient and effective. Are you
willing to actively support the recommendations of the Interagency Task
Force and allow them a fair opportunity to succeed?
Answer. I am unfamiliar with the specific reforms being developed
by the Interagency Task Force, including the work they have undertaken
to date and the recommendations they are considering. As a general
matter, I support collaborative decisionmaking and look forward to
working with the Task Force.
Question. What is your position on the mandatory conditioning
authority of the Federal land and resource agencies contained in the
Federal Power Act? Will you fully support the resource management
agencies in imposing on FERC licenses such conditions as are necessary
to protect the resources under those agencies' jurisdiction?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the mandatory
conditioning authority of the Federal Power Act but I recognize the
resource management agencies have an important role to play in FERC
relicensing. I look forward to working with FERC and others to ensure
that natural resources are protected during the relicensing process.
Question. A recent AP article reports that, as a lawyer in private
practice, you represented the Alaska State Legislature in a subsistence
fisheries regulation dispute with the Department of the Interior. As
part of your work for the legislature, you assisted the Mountain States
Legal Foundation in writing an amicus brief for a Federal lawsuit
opposing Department of the Interior oversight of fishing in Alaska.
Some opponents of the regulations are challenging them in court. Will
you recuse yourself from this matter since you were recently involved
as a private attorney?
Answer. Under the terms of the Committee's recusal policy, I will
recuse myself for a period of one year from any involvement or
decisions relating to this litigation. I also will consider my
commitments as a lawyer under legal ethics rules regarding a longer-
term recusal and, if I am confirmed, will consult with the Department
of the Interior Office of Ethics to avoid any appearance of
impropriety.
Responses to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question. The Hanford Reach National Monument covers 195,000 acres
and is the last undammed stretch of the Columbia River. This area also
plays a vital role in the recovery of salmon in the Pacific Northwest,
which has direct linkages to treaty obligations with the Native
American tribes and Canada. What will you do to assure that this new
monument receives the necessary funding to fully protect the resources
within its boundaries, as well as maintaining its original boundaries?
Will you consult with myself and other members of the Northwest
congressional delegation before any changes are proposed and made?
Answer. At this time, I do not know what resources will be
necessary to manage all of the national monuments, including the
Hanford Reach National Monument. I can commit that I will not take any
action with respect to the Hanford Reach National Monument without
consulting with you and other interested members of the Washington
delegation, as well as the State and affected local communities. I look
forward to learning more about the Hanford Reach National Monument and
working with you to obtain the resources necessary to manage the
Monument.
Question. My home state of Washington has successfully developed
several Habitat Conservation Plans that are an integral part of our
state's response to Endangered Species Act listings. As Secretary, will
you make funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service HCP program a
priority to help ensure the ongoing success of these HCPs?
Answer. I believe HCPs play a very important role in protecting
endangered species, and I will work to see that they are adequately
funded.
Question. The General Mining Law of 1872 allows for mining of
minerals from public lands without royalty payments to the Federal
government and without provisions to protect the environment. Many view
this law as subsidizing environmentally harmful mining on public lands
at taxpayer expense. What specific reforms will you support of the
General Mining Law of 1872?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the various
concerns that have been raised with respect to the implementation of
the Mining Law of 1872. Therefore, I am not in a position at this time
to make specific recommendations regarding potential reforms. However,
I look forward to learning more about the Mining Law and would welcome
the opportunity to work with Congress as it considers proposed reforms.
Question. On November 21, 2000, the Bureau of Land Management
published the final ``3809 rules'' regulating surface mining on public
lands. Since the General Mining Law of 1872 contains no provisions for
environmental protection, these rules are essential to the protection
of our natural resources. What position will you take on these rules?
What actions will you take to ensure environmentally sound mining
operations on public lands?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the Part 3809
regulations in detail. I also understand that these regulations have
been challenged and that litigation is pending. Therefore, I cannot
comment on these regulations. As a general matter, however, if I am
confirmed as Secretary of the Department of the Interior, I will work
with the Bureau of Land Management, the States, mining companies, and
environmental groups to ensure that mining on public lands are
conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.
Question. During the hearings you responded positively to upholding
the Solicitor's opinion regarding tribal treaty responsibilities. How
do you plan to ensure that the next Solicitor will support this
opinion?
Answer. As I stated during the hearing, President Bush has
committed to strengthen Native American self-determination by
respecting tribal sovereignty, encouraging economic development on
reservations, and working with the Tribes to reorganize the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service to better serve their
needs. I support this commitment and will work with each of the
agencies within the Department to achieve President Bush's pledge. I am
ont familiar with the specific details of the Solicitor's opinion.
Question. Do you agree that the Minerals Management Service and the
Congress should continue the offshore oil drilling leasing moratoria
off the coasts of Washington, California, Florida and Alaska?
Answer. President Bush pledged to support the existing moratoria on
OCS leases. It is my understanding that includes not only existing
Presidential and Congressional moratoria on oil and natural gas
activities off the coasts of California and Florida, but also the
Congressional and Presidential moratoria on oil and natural gas
activities off the coasts of Washington and certain parts of Alaska. If
confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I will adhere to this
commitment.
Responses to Questions From Senator Dorgan
Question. If we open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
drilling, what would happen to the price of oil in the lower 48 states?
If we started drilling in the Arctic Refuge tomorrow, how long
would it take until we would see the first barrel of oil? I understand
the Arctic Refuge would yield a 5-6 month economically viable supply of
fuel. What is your understanding of the economically viable supply the
Arctic Refuge is projected to yield?
Answer. As part of a national energy policy, President Bush
committed to opening up ANWR to environmentally responsible
exploration. He further proposed to dedicate the estimated $1.2 billion
to be earned in bonus bids to fund research into alternative energy
sources such as wind, solar and biomass. As to the unquantified
revenues to be earned from production, he proposed the creation of a
Royalties Conservation Fund to fund conservation programs, including
the reduction of the maintenance backlog on Federal lands.
As I stated during the hearing, if confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior, and if a bill is enacted authorizing exploration in ANWR, I
will work to ensure that any development is done in an environmentally
safe manner using the latest technologies and the best science.
According to information contained in a publicly available May 1998
report prepared by the Department of the Interior, the technically
recoverable oil within the 8% of ANWR available for commercial
development is between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels, with a mean
estimate of 10.3 billion barrels. I am not familiar enough with the
global supply and demand of oil and its impact on prices to respond as
to specific impacts of production from ANWR. I also am not familiar
enough with the situation to know when the first barrel of oil would be
produced.
Question. The United States has a government-to-government
relationship with tribes that should be honored. In recent years, there
have been a number of attempts to attach legislative ``riders'' to
appropriations bills that would be detrimental to tribal sovereignty,
such as efforts to impose a moratorium on tribal 638 contracts and
compacts, to re-distribute Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), or to
limit tribal sovereign immunity. As Secretary of Interior, if
confirmed, would you oppose efforts to erode tribal sovereignty?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specific riders that you refer
to in your question. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior,
however, I am committed to fulfilling President Bush's pledge to
strengthen Native American self-determination by respecting tribal
sovereignty, encouraging economic development on reservations, and
working with the Tribes to reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the Indian Health Service to better serve their needs.
Question. On November 6, 2000, President Clinton signed a new
Executive Order to help ensure better federal agency consultation and
coordination with Indian tribes when developing policies, regulations,
etc. affecting Indian country, as is consistent with our long-held
federal policy of Indian self-determination. As the Secretary of
Interior, if confirmed, would you abide by the spirit of this Executive
Order by consulting with tribes on the policies and regulations
developed by the Interior Department that affect them?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the Executive Order.
However, as a general matter, I strongly believe that federal decisions
should be made in consultation with the groups most affected by them.
In the case of decisions or regulations affecting Indian Tribes or
Tribal lands, I am committed to consulting with the Tribes, as well as
the States and other local communities.
Question. We have made some progress, especially in FY2001, for
meeting the funding needs of Indian Country. In fact, we increased
funding by $1.1 billion government-wide for Indian programs in FY2001.
However, this progress is merely undoing the funding cuts to Indian
programs that occurred during the Reagan and Bush years. By 1989,
federal funding for Indian programs had fallen to $2.5 billion [in 1990
constant dollars]. Great needs continue to exist, however. The poverty
rate for Native Americans is 26%, they are 5.3 times more likely to die
of tuberculosis, 3.3 times more likely to die of diabetes, and 3 times
more likely to die in an accident, and the schools young Indian
children attend are among the worst in the nation. Given the great need
that exists and the federal trust responsibility we have to Indian
people, will you submit budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs that
reflect the needs in Indian country?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the level of resources that
would be required to meet the needs in Indian Country to fully respond
to this question at this time. If confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior, I would look forward to working with you, and Congressional
appropriators, to obtain sufficient funding to address the legitimate
needs of the Indian Tribes. At a minimum, I am strongly committed to
seeking funding to achieve President Bush's pledge to dedicate $928
million over the next five years to address the maintenance backlog in
Indian schools and to construct six new schools in Indian Country.
Question. I believe tribal colleges are a key to economic
development and economic success for Native Americans. Tribally-
controlled colleges are dependent on federal support because they are
located on federal trust territory and are only (at the most) 25 years
old, so they do not have an alumni base or financial reserves. The
Tribal Colleges Act authorizes funding of $6,000 per enrolled full-time
Indian student; but even with the increase in funding I fought for and
won in FY2001, the colleges are funded at only $3,477 per student.
Would you be supportive of efforts to increase tribal college funding
to the authorized level of $6,000 per student?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the Tribal Colleges Act
program to respond to this question at this time. I look forward to
learning more about the program and the amount of additional resources
that would be needed to increase federal funding to the full
authorization level. I would be happy to discuss this with you in
greater detail at a later date.
Question. In the Dry Tortugas, off the coast of Key West, the
federal government is almost finished creating a preserve in which
fishing and boating would be sharply curtailed. In several marine
protected areas the government has worked with all relevant
stakeholders to develop a scientifically and economically sound and
environmentally-sustainable management plan. Would you support
continuation support of the Dry Tortugas and other marine protected
areas?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the details of the Dry
Tortugas preserve to respond to this question at this time. I would be
happy to follow up with you at a later date after I have had an
opportunity to learn more about the Dry Tortugas.
Responses to Questions From Senator Feinstein
Question. There are currently 36 undeveloped oil leases situated on
the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California. Development of
these leases has been strongly opposed by the state of California and
the associated local coastal communities. This Administration has
signaled its intent to prioritize the development of domestic oil and
gas sources. Will you encourage development of offshore leases in
states like California where there is strong and persistent opposition
to the development of such leases? Past administrations have used their
executive authority to place a moratorium on offshore oil and gas
drilling in currently undeveloped areas. Would you recommend that such
a moratorium be continued under this administration? Would you view
such a moratorium, or any other environmental regulation that prevents
development of a lease, to be a taking under the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution?
Answer. President Bush pledged to support the existing moratoria on
OCS leases. He also committed to working with California and Florida
leaders and local affected communities to determine on a case-by-case
basis whether or not drilling should occur on existing, but undeveloped
leases. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I will honor these
commitments and promise to work with all parties to reach a consensus
on how undeveloped leases should be handled and the extension of
existing moratoria.
Question. There are now well over 1,000 species that have been
federally recognized as threatened or endangered species. The
Endangered Species Act compels the Secretary of Interior to identify
habitat that is critical to the recovery of those species and protect
that habitat from further degradation. Many have alleged that our
limited success in recovering species is due to our failure to protect
the habitat upon which these species depend. In states like California,
where there are a large number of listed species and a great deal of
habitat that has been identified as ``critical habitat,'' protection of
this habitat has been controversial. How would you interpret the
Interior Department's obligations to protect and conserve the critical
habitat of these threatened and endangered species? Do you consider
efforts to protect species' habitat on private lands to be a violation
of private property rights that would require compensation of the
affected landowners? How do you plan to ensure that the Interior
Department fulfills its duty to recover listed species? Do you continue
to hold the view that the ESA Section 7 prohibition against taking
endangered species does not apply to habitat modification?
Answer. The Endangered Species Act requires the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service, to designate
critical habitat for listed species. Under the law, the Fish and
Wildlife Service is further required to ensure that activities
authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies do not
jeopardize species through the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. I am committed to enforcing those requirements. I am
also committed to work with private landowners to preserve habitat
through habitat conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, and other
innovative tools.
As I stated during the hearing, I believe that the determination of
whether a regulatory taking has occurred must be made on a case-by-case
basis under the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court. Under those
guidelines, I believe it is clear that the federal government can
ordinarily enforce the take prohibition of section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act without triggering the compensation requirement of the
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
I am not familiar enough with the efforts that are currently being
made by the Department to recover species to respond to this question
at this time. However, I am committed to returning the focus on the
Endangered Species Program to recovering species. In addition to
working to ensure that recovery plans are developed and implemented for
all listed species, I look forward to using incentives and other
innovative tools to encourage recovery efforts by States and private
landowners. I look forward to working with Congress, the States,
private landowners, the environmental community, and other interested
stakeholders to achieve this goal.
Question. The Interior Department recently announced its denial of
a permit for the Glamis Imperial gold mine that was proposed for
development in Imperial County, California. This mine was rejected on
the grounds that it would have caused undue degradation to the site's
environmental and cultural resources. Do you think it is appropriate
under current mining law for the Secretary to reject mines like the
proposed Glamis Imperial Mine on these grounds?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specifics of the Glamis mine
proposal or the basis on which the mine was rejected. I look forward to
learning more about the proposed Glamis project and working with
Congress to ensure that all new mining projects maintain an appropriate
balance between legitimate mineral development activities and
preservation of important environmental and cultural resources
Question. The Federal government receives royalties from private
oil and gas companies that extract oil and gas resources from federal
lands. Recently, the Interior Department finalized regulations to
ensure that oil royalties paid to the federal government are based upon
the fair market value of that oil. This new policy will ensure that
taxpayers receive equitable compensation for these resources and is
expected to generate approximately $67 million in additional revenue.
Are you prepared to support this new rule which fairly compensates
taxpayers for oil taken from federal lands? The Secretary of Interior
has the discretion to accept these royalties as either payment-in-kind
or payment-in-value. Historically, there have been few instances of
royalties being paid in-kind. As Secretary, would you encourage the use
of royalty payments in-kind?
Answer. I share with you a desire to ensure that the American
taxpayer is fairly compensated for resource development on Federal
lands. However, I am unfamiliar with the details of this rule. If
confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I will review the rule, along
with the statutory obligations on royalties collections and then decide
how to proceed.
Question. Recently, the National Park Service developed a detailed
plan for the future management of Yosemite National Park. This plan was
developed after considerable input from all of the affected
stakeholders and over 10,000 members of the public submitted comments
to the agency. Central to this plan is the notion that visitors to the
park should be encouraged to leave their personal vehicles outside the
park and travel through the park on a park transit system. As Secretary
of Interior, will you actively support implementation of the new
Yosemite Valley Management Plan? Will you be aggressive about
developing similar management plans for the many other national parks
that are suffering environmental degradation because their management
practices have not kept pace with the growing numbers of visitors?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the Yosemite Valley
Management Plan. As a general matter, I support the concept of
management plans for our public lands and believe that they represent
an important decision-making tool for land managers. For these plans to
be successful, I believe it is important that they be developed in
consultation with the affected States, local communities, affected
stakeholders, and environmental groups.
Question. In 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a
policy for Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges in
California and Oregon that prevents irrigation on commercial farmland
on the refuges unless sufficient water is available to sustain the
refuges' marshes. Do you support this policy which gives priority to
the refuges' ecological resources over commercial farming? The National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 set new requirements for
the management of refuges. In response, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service issued regulations establishing procedures for determining what
uses are compatible with the mission of the refuge system and the
mission of each individual refuge. Do you believe farming is compatible
with the mission of the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife
Refuges? What uses would you deem to be incompatible with the mission
of the national wildlife refuge system?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the Department's 1998
policy.
I have not yet had an opportunity to review the Compatibility
Policy, and am not in a position at this time to assess how it might
affect the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges. I am
also aware that the Fish and Wildlife Service recently issued a draft
Appropriate Uses Policy that may impact activities on refuges such as
Tule Lake or the Lower Klamath. I look forward to learning more about
the Fish and Wildlife Service's policies implementing the National
Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act and about the 530 Refuges in the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Question. The Department of the Interior, with the concurrence of
the Hoopa Valley Tribe, announced on December 19, 2000, a plan to
restore the Trinity River in California. The decision is based on 20
years of scientific research and public involvement. It completes a
process supported by the Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton
Administrations and has enjoyed bipartisan support in the Congress.
Will you commit your Department to follow through on the decision and
implement the Trinity River restoration program?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with this restoration plan to
respond to this question at this time. I look forward to working with
you to learn more about this plan and the Department of Interior's role
in implementing it.
Question. Do you believe that any government action or regulation
which negatively affects the value of property must be compensated
under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment? Do you recognize that
this is not the standard called for under the takings clause as it has
thus far been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court? If you do not
believe that any diminution in value must be compensated, what is the
threshold you believe is required under the U.S. Constitution? Do you
hold the view that the above interpretation of the takings clause would
have the effect of limiting government regulatory actions and have a
chilling effect on regulation?
Answer. Not every federal action or regulation that adversely
impacts a property owner constitutes a taking under the Fifth
Amendment. The Supreme Court has articulated guidelines setting forth
what constitutes a taking that must be compensated. I support the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the takings clause of the Fifth
Amendment and do not believe that it unduly restricts federal
regulatory activity.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, you will be
involved in many issues where various stakeholders will argue that you
may not take a certain action because it would run afoul of the takings
clause. For example, an oil company might argue that you cannot deny a
permit to drill or explore an offshore oil lease because it would give
rise to a taking of that lease interest under the takings clause.
Assume that the effect of denying the permit would not be to completely
devalue the worth of the permit. Current Supreme Court precedent in
such a case can fairly be interpreted as indicating that this is not,
in fact, a taking. Your views as stated in various law review articles
on this issue, I believe, can be fairly stated to be contrary to that
precedent. How would your view of the takings clause inform your
decision as to whether or not to grant or deny the permit?
Answer. I will comply with the law. The Fifth Amendment does not
prohibit a federal agency from taking actions that will affect property
rights; rather, it provides that such takings must be compensated. The
Supreme Court has set forth guidelines to evaluate when a regulatory
action constitutes a compensable taking. If an action by the Department
results in a taking, the question of whether and to what extent
compensation is required must be decided on a case-by-case basis
consistent with the law and Supreme Court precedent.
Question. You will have jurisdiction over the natural resource
damages (NRD) provisions of Superfund should you be confirmed as
Interior Secretary. The NRD provisions call upon polluters to restore
the natural resources harmed by their actions. NRD liability has been a
critical part of the law in California where these provisions have been
imposed to require polluters to restore our treasured natural resources
and to truly make the public whole. For example, in the Montrose
Chemical case, Montrose discharged tons of DDT through storm sewers and
into the ocean off the Palos Verdes Peninsula, doing significant damage
to ocean life. On December 19, 2000, after years of litigation,
Montrose finally agreed to pay--under the NRD provisions of Superfund--
roughly $73 million to restore Palos Verdes Peninsula. You have
expressed the view that it is not proper to impose liability upon
polluters for actions they took before Superfund was enacted. If your
view were to prevail within the Interior Department, however, Montrose
Chemical would probably not have been held liable for these costs
because its actions took place between 1947-1971. Is it your view that
Montrose should not be held liable for the damage it caused to these
natural resources in California and that taxpayers should be required
to pay to restore these resources?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specific facts of the
Montrose case to respond to this question. More generally, however, I
recognize that the Department of the Interior is responsible as a land
manager and trustee of natural resources for recovering damages for the
restoration of natural resources under its trusteeship. As I stated
during the hearing, I am committed to enforcing the law, including any
decisions of the federal courts that define the scope of liability for
continuing injuries to natural resources resulting from pre-1980
activities.
Question. As you may know, for many years California and the
federal government have been engaged in a long-range planning effort to
restore the San Francisco Bay Delta. This planning effort, dubbed
CALFED, resulted in a Record of Decision (ROD) last year. The ROD calls
for various immediate actions to stave off the extinction of several
runs of endangered salmon, and longer range actions to improve the
water supply reliability for California's urban and agricultural water
users. Would you seek and support appropriations to implement the
ecosystem restoration elements of CALFED this year? Would you continue
the Interior Department's active role in the CALFED program?
Answer. I have not yet had an opportunity to review the CALFED
program. I look forward to learning more about how the program has
worked in the past, the details of the latest agreement, and the
results that have already been achieved. I know that CALFED has many
good components--building on a partnership between the federal and
State governments; local community involvement and local decision-
making whenever appropriate; and regulatory certainty for landowners. I
also understand that Congress did not provide funding for CALFED last
year in part because the program's authorization had expired. I am
certainly willing to work with you, Senator Feinstein, and others in
Congress on authorizing language to address the fundamental goals of
the program. I anticipate that the Department will continue to play an
active role.
Question. The Horseshoe Bend Wildlife Area in Siskiyou County is
managed as a unit in cooperation with lands administered by the U.S.
Forest Service and the California Department of Fish and Game,
primarily for its value as a winter deer range and for other wildlife
values. Concerns have been raised and recognized by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) that cattle grazing allowed in the Horseshoe Bend
Wildlife Area has damaged the habitat. Since the Area was established
in 1977 and enlarged in 1993, BLM's primary charge has been to manage
the Horsehoe Bend Area primarily for wildlife values. What steps can be
taken to improve and maintain the range habitat and adjacent riparian
habitat and protect it from damage caused by grazing?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specific facts of the
Horseshoe Bend Wildlife Area to respond to this question. I look
forward to learning more about this Area and would be pleased to follow
up with you at a later time.
Responses to Questions From Senator Gordon Smith
Question. Over the past year, both BLM and the US Forest Service
have attempted to increases substantially the fees charged for rights-
of-way across federal lands for fiberoptic facilities. These attempts
not only occurred outside the normal process for revising fee schedules
but--in effect--changed the basis for calculating fair market value on
federal lands. Over the next 18 months, both BLM and the USFS will make
important decisions to potentially revise the right-of-way fee
schedules--especially for fiberoptics.
Will you commit to work with me and this Committee to ensure: an
open, consultative process for developing these revisions? that well-
accepted standards and practices for establishing fair market value
will be used? that, in their anticipation of collecting more money,
these agencies do not jeopardize their policy goals, or the President-
elect' s commitment to rural development?
Answer. I am aware that the appropriate fee schedules for fiber
optics right-of-ways is an important issue to Congress. I will commit,
if confirmed as Secretary, that the Department of the Interior will
work with the Committee to ensure an open, consultative process for
revising the fee schedules, that well-accepted standards and practices
for establishing fair market value are used, and that President Bush's
commitment to rural development is not jeopardized by these revisions.
Question. The agencies have let a contract to collect market data
to form the basis of fee schedule revisions. I have heard from a number
of sources that the configuration of this market study does not conform
with standard property evaluation practices and is therefore likely to
be deeply flawed. Will you assure this Committee that unless and until
this market study is revised to ensure that the data it collects is
appropriate and conforms to acceptable practices, it will not be used
to make any recommendations or decisions on the revision of fee
schedules?
Answer. I do not know the details of the market study but I will
review it and then decide on the appropriate way to proceed.
Question. In Oregon, we have nine federally recognized Indian
Tribes--all of which have important cultural ties to federally-managed
lands both within and outside of their reservation lands. For public
lands that are of cultural and historical significance to Tribes, but
outside of the lands held in trust for Tribes, are you willing to work
with Indian Tribes and local stakeholders to accommodate Tribal
requests for protection of, access to, and ceremonial use of Indian
sacred sites by the Tribes?
Answer. Yes, so long as such accommodation does not interfere with
the Secretary's other responsibilities to manage federal property
outside of trust lands. I strongly believe that decisions regarding the
use of our public lands should be made through an open, collaborative
process whenever possible, that involves consultation with all affected
stakeholders, including States, local communities, Tribes, land users
and environmental groups. I am not familiar with the Department's
position with respect to the protection of Indian Sacred Sites, but
will work with the Tribes on a case-by-case basis to address any
concerns raised regarding the protection of Sacred Sites.
Question. Do you believe it is important to avoid adversely
affecting the physical integrity of such sites in federal land
management decisions, as set forth in Executive Order 13007 (Indian
Sacred Sites)?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specifics of Executive Order
13007. However, in general, I believe it is important that the
Department work with the Tribes to preserve and protect Indian Sacred
Sites whenever possible, consistent with the responsible management of
our public lands.
Responses to Questions From Senator Graham
Question. Do you support a ``no net loss'' policy for private
lands?
Answer. I believe that the acquisition of lands can be an important
tool to achieve a shared conservation goal. In some areas where the
federal government already owns the vast majority of land, careful
consideration must be given to the social, economic and environmental
impacts of further acquisitions.
Question. Do you support the use of land acquisition as a
conservation tool when adequate compensation is provided?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you support the addition of National Park units to the
system?
Answer. In general, I believe that the decision about whether to
add a new unit must be made on a case-by-case basis. I also recognize
that any decision to add a new unit also requires Congressional action.
I am aware that the National Park Service is currently facing a
substantial maintenance backlog, estimated to be as high as $4.9
billion. I support the President's statement that our first priority
must be to maintain the existing units in the National Park System.
Question. What are your plans for funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund?
Answer. President Bush campaigned on full funding of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF Act authorizes that up to $900
million a year can be appropriated to fund LWCF programs.
Question. Under both President George H.W. Bush and President Bill
Clinton's Administrations, many new national wildlife refuges were
established using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Do you support
or oppose the use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to establish
national wildlife refuges?
Answer. Section 7 of the LWCF Act authorizes the use of LWCF monies
for the acquisition of national wildlife refuge system lands. I support
the use of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
acquisition of land for conservation purposes, including acquisitions
for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Question. Would you place any new limitations on the establishment
of new national wildlife refuges?
Answer. I do not have a position with respect to the establishment
of new national wildlife refuges at this time. However, I am aware that
the Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a substantial maintenance
backlog on refuge lands, as well as significant shortfalls in the
operations budget. I believe that these issues must be taken into
consideration as proposals to expand the National Wildlife Refuge
System are reviewed.
Question. The federal side of the LWCF is critical, but the state
side is just as critical. The National Recreation and Park Association
estimates that state and local governments need approximately $55
billion dollars over the next five years to meet recreation demand and
facility restoration needs. What is your position on funding the state
side of the LWCF?
Answer. President Bush campaigned on full funding of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and voiced support for the state-side
program. The LWCF Act authorizes that up to $900 million a year can be
appropriated to fund Federal land acquisition and the state-side LWCF
program. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I will strive to
fulfill this commitment.
Question. From a broad perspective, can you describe the
characteristics of the situations where you believe that federal
actions such as regulation or rulemaking should result in compensation
to a private property owner?
Answer. The question of when compensation could result from
government action requires a fact specific analysis based on the U.S.
Supreme Court's guidelines regarding regulatory takings. Generally, the
courts have required that property impacted by regulation must no
longer have any economic use before compensation is required.
Question. Would you say that your view today of the characteristics
where compensation should be provided have changed through the course
of your career?
Answer. My views on takings issues have been greatly informed by
judicial decisions in these areas over the past 20 years. For the most
part, the jurisprudence of takings developed by the courts generally
reflects broad positions I have supported over the years. However,
while I continue to have a healthy respect for state and local property
interests, if confirmed as Secretary of the Interior I have a mandate
to maintain public lands consistent with the requirements of Congress
and the United States Supreme Court. My prior views are consistent with
my desire to be a strong steward of the public lands under my
supervision.
Question. If so, how are they different today than in the 1980s or
early 1990s?
Answer. My approach on takings issues have not changed since I
became the Colorado Attorney General. Many issues that were unresolved
in the 1980s have been resolved by judicial decisions. I will enforce
those laws if confirmed as Secretary of the Interior.
Question. There are often federal actions that increase the value
of private property such as flood protection and navigation dredging.
Do you support these types of federal actions?
Answer. Generally yes, depending upon the particular situation.
Question. Will you support a recoupment of the benefits provided to
these private property owners in the form of fee for service or
payments to the government?
Answer. I am not familiar with what specific issues of this type
would be within my responsibilities at the Department of the Interior,
and what statutory provisions might govern such actions. In Colorado,
we frequently used similar mechanisms as new projects were developed,
so that those who benefited from projects hared in the financing. Some
of these mechanisms may appropriately be useful for federal programs.
Question. How do you plan to prioritize the Department of
Interior's budget with regard to its existing responsibilities and any
new compensation programs you might undertake?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the Department's budget or
the full extent of its responsibilities to respond to this question at
this time. President Bush has recommended that landowner incentive
programs to protect additional wildlife habitat be funded. He also has
campaigned on full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Question. Your views and those of the President-elect on the
development of oil and gas resources in the ANWR are clearly known. Is
this position indicative or your views on development of oil and gas
resources in all sensitive, federally-owned environmental lands?
Answer. President Bush campaigned on the need for a comprehensive
national energy policy that decreases dependence on foreign oil and
natural gas. He proposed to review currently restricted Federal lands
potentially containing oil and natural gas reserves to determine
whether such lands should be opened to environmentally responsible and
regulated exploration. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I
will seek to fulfill this commitment and ensure that any development on
Federal lands complies with all environmental requirements.
Question. If development does proceed in the ANWR, how much oil is
anticipated to be extracted?
Answer. According to information contained in a publicly available
May 1998 report prepared by the Department of the Interior, the
technically recoverable oil within the 8% of ANWR available for
commercial development is between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels,
with a mean estimate of 10.3 billion barrels.
Question. What is the anticipated price impact in the continental
U.S. and when do you anticipate this effect to be felt if development
does proceed in the ANWR?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the global supply and demand
of oil and its impact on prices to respond as to specific impacts of
production from ANWR.
Question. What is your position on the status of Puerto Rico as a
U.S. territory?
Answer. I have not taken a position. As I understand the matter,
issues surrounding the status of Puerto Rico have been the
responsibility of the White House since the administration of President
Kennedy.
Question. One of the largest questions facing our National Parks
today is use. To what degree, where, and how should our parks be
available to the public for use. What are your views regarding the
Department of Interior's role in managing use of national park
resources?
Answer. I believe that our National Parks should be accessible to
broadest range of public uses consistent with the law and the need to
maintain an appropriate balance between access for everyone and
protection of the resources in the National Park System. The
Department, and the National Park Service in particular, is responsible
for managing the National Parks in such a way as to meet those
obligations.
Question. Do you believe it is appropriate for the Department of
Interior to restrict use in National Park lands when it is determined
that impairment as defined in the National Park Service Organic Act is
occurring?
Answer. The Department of the Interior must manage National Park
Service lands in a manner consistent with the National Park Service
Organic Act.
Question. During your remarks when President-elect Bush nominated
you to be Secretary of Interior you focused on partnering with private
landowners and local governments. With regard to national parks, can
you describe your view of how the Secretary of Interior should balance
a desire to cooperate with landowners and local governments and his or
her responsibility to protect public lands? At what point should the
Secretary of Interior use enforcement action to protect public lands?
Answer. Partnerships with private landowners and other incentives
are simply additional tools that the Department can use to achieve
shared conservation goals. For example, in the case of protection of
endangered species, the Department must work with private landowners
because they own the habitat of over 50 percent of all listed species.
These partnerships, however, are not a substitute for enforcement
actions. As Secretary, I would remain committed to enforcing the law.
Question. If use is restricted in national parks, do you believe
that compensation to private property owners is required? If so, can
you define the types of scenarios where you believe compensation would
be appropriate.
Answer. The Supreme Court has set forth guidelines to determine
when a regulatory taking has occurred. That determination must be made
on a case-by-case basis. At this time, I am not familiar enough with
any proposed or final use restrictions in our National Parks to
identify those that might trigger a takings claim.
Question. While this issue is not in the jurisdiction of this
Committee, it is in the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior as
well as the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I serve. In
1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act which amended the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. It was
the first ``organic'' legislation for the National Wildlife Refuge
System. It contained a series of directives for the Fish and Wildlife
Service which they have carried out over the last several years. On
January 16, the Fish and Wildlife Service published draft rules on: 1)
mission, goals, and purpose; 2) recreation; 3) appropriate use; 4)
wilderness stewardship. These draft rules have undergone an extensive
amount of review by the Fish and Wildlife Service and are ready for
public comment. They will be finalized during your tenure at the
Department of Interior. Do you plan to complete this work in a timely
manner?
Answer. I am aware that the Fish and Wildlife Service released last
week four new proposed policies and one final policy implementing the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. I have not yet had an
opportunity to review these policies. Therefore, at this time, I am
unable to comment on when they will be finalized.
Question. Do you plan to respond to all public comments on this
rulemaking, regardless of their origin?
Answer. Yes.
Question. In May 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued
final agency policy on preparing Comprehensive Conservation Plans
required under that same law. The policy requires each refuge to
conduct wilderness reviews as part of the planning process. Refuges
must review both lands that have never been studied and lands that were
previously reviewed but not recommended for wilderness designation to
determine if they currently qualify for this designation. Do you agree
with this policy?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specific elements of this
policy to respond to this question at this time.
Question. If confirmed, will you propose changes to this policy?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specific elements of this
policy to respond to this question at this time.
Responses to Questions From Senator Johnson
cara
Question. What are your views on this legislation? Did you support
it? Why or why not?
Answer. I recognize that CARA was a highly contentious issue in the
last Congress and that it caused sharp divisions among the members of
the Committee. I never took a position on CARA. With respect to
enhanced funding for conservation programs, President Bush made a
number of commitments consistent with the broad goals of CARA. These
commitments included a pledge to seek full funding for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund and a proposal to establish an incentive
program for private landowners to preserve land and protect rare
species.
Question. While some additional funding was provided for
conservation programs in the Interior Appropriations bill last year,
most of these programs will continue to be chronically under-funded
according to the authorization levels for these that have been enacted.
Moreover, PILT is still under-funded with harms states like mine that
have a high level of federal lands. How do you propose to address this?
Answer. As to the funding for CARA type programs included in the
Interior Appropriations Act last year, I have not had an opportunity to
immerse myself in these details. I do agree that the payment in-lieu-of
taxes program is vitally important in those States with significant
federal lands. However, at this time, I am not familiar enough with the
level of funding for conservation programs or with the potentially
competing needs of the Department, to respond to this question with any
specificity. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I would look
forward to working with you, and Congressional appropriators, on this
issue.
Question. In addition, funding for wildlife protection is also
under-funded from authorized levels. States, by themselves can't
address these needs. While some additional funding for these programs
were also provided last year, more needs to be done. How do you propose
to address this?
Answer. I appreciate that many programs may have been under-funded
relative to the authorization for such programs, including wildlife
protection. However, at this time, I am not familiar enough with the
level of funding for conservation programs contained in last year's
Interior Appropriations Act or with the potentially competing needs of
the Department, to respond to this question with any specificity. If
confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I would look forward to working
with you, and Congressional appropriators, on this issue.
rural drinking water
Question. In recent years, the Bureau of Reclamation has been given
the responsibility of oversight for a number of large scale rural
drinking water projects that have brought a dependable source of clean,
safe drinking water to many rural areas. These projects are critically
important to the health and well-being of these communities.
Much of my home state of South Dakota, for example, is plagued by
water of exceedingly poor quality, and the Mni Wiconi, Mid-Dakota,
Perkins County and Lewis and Clark rural water projects are efforts to
help provide clean water--a commodity most of us take for granted--to
the people of South Dakota. I am a strong believer in the federal
governments role in rural water delivery and our nation's
infrastructure, and I hope to continue to advance that agenda.
Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult to find the
necessary funding for these projects due to the decreases in the Bureau
of Reclamation's budget. The Bureau has been helpful over the years,
but they frequently need help promoting their budget requests through
the Interior Dept and OMB.
Do you support the Bureau of Reclamation's new role as an oversight
agency for these rural drinking water projects and will you prioritize
the Bureau of Reclamation funding in your Department of the Interior
budget request?
Answer. I understand that the Bureau of Reclamation has taken on an
increasing responsibility for the delivery of clean, safe drinking
water to many rural areas throughout the western United States,
including South Dakota. However, I am not familiar with the extent of
the Bureau's role in this regard or how it may impact other Bureau
responsibilities. I look forward to learning more about this program
and would be happy to discuss this with you further at a later date.
disabilities
Question. Concerns have been raised about the level of compliance
of federal lands and facilities with the American Disabilities Act. You
have expressed some concern in the past about federal requirements of
the American Disabilities Act. This was a law that was proudly signed
by President Bush. It has been reported that you considered filing suit
when you were attorney general in Colorado opposing federal
requirements under the ADA that required renovations of the Colorado
statehouse to include a wheelchair ramp.
How do you propose to ensure that all federal facilities under the
Department of the Interior's jurisdiction comply with those
requirements? How do you plan to ensure that facilities will comply
with the requirements of the ADA?
Answer. I am committed to the goals of the ADA. While I was still
in law school, I wrote a law review article supporting access to mass
transit for the handicapped. In a speech, I noted that one application
of the ADA to the State Capitol might infringe on the State's powers
under the 10th Amendment. However, no suit was ever seriously
contemplated. However, I am committed to complying with the ADA
regulations. I will work with each of the bureaus within the Department
of the Interior and offices across the country to ensure that the
Department is in full compliance with the law.
tribal education
Question. Tribal Education for Native Americans has been a high
priority for me throughout my 14 years in the United States Congress. I
have seen very few advances in funding of education programs for Native
Americans nor in school constructions funds. In tribal K-12 education
facilities alone there is a $1 billion backlog.
It is important that we find ways to improve the educational
opportunities for Native Americans so that we can help them get out of
the cycle of poverty that they constantly face. I have introduced
legislation that would allow tribal schools to issue bonds to attract
private financing. But more needs to be done on the federal level.
I would like to know what your intentions are in upholding the
Federal Government Trust responsibility of educating our Nation's
Native American Children?
Answer. I am committed to fulfilling President Bush's pledge to
educate Indian children in safe and structurally sound schools. I will
request funding from Congress to meet the commitment to provide $928
million over the next five years to eliminate the current backlog of
renovation and maintenance requests, as well as to fulfill the promise
to construct six new schools. Schools with the most urgent needs will
be given priority in funding requests. I would welcome the opportunity
to talk with you regarding the provision of bonding authority to tribal
schools.
homestake
Question. Homestake Gold Mine in Lead, SD is closing its facilities
after 100 years of operation. One of the possibilities for use of the
existing mine is a physical particle lab that would be run by the
National Science Foundation. I expect that some legislation will be
needed to turn over the land and that some logistical and legal details
may need to be worked out.
I am hopeful that we can work together to address this situation.
It sounds like this could be the kind of public/private partnerships
that we should be encouraging with these and other issues that are
before us today.
Answer. I am not familiar with the specific proposal, but look
forward to learning more about it and working you to transform the old
Homestake Mine into a new facility for the future.
Responses to Questions From Senator Landrieu
Question. The Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-
379) established the state water resources program within the Interior
Department. Last year Congress re-authorized this program for an
additional five years in Public Law 106-374.
The Act authorizes a program of water-related research and training
of scientists and engineers to enter fields of water research and
management. The program is administered by state water resources
research institutes at 54 land grant colleges in each of the 50 States,
and in the Virgin Islands, Guam, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. The program is under the general guidance of the Secretary of the
Interior and administered by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Through this partnership of the U.S. Geological Survey, state
government, and higher education, the water resources research
institutes have the capability to provide important support to the
states in their long-term water planning, policy development, and
resources management efforts. They support research on all topics
related to water resources and the management of water resources. The
institutes' outreach and information transfer activities are important
tools for stakeholders in the water resources management community. The
nationwide network of water institutes, in collaboration with USGS,
provides an efficient and effective method to meet the diverse water
resource needs in different parts of our country.
Are you familiar with the state water resources research institute
program or the work done by the Colorado Water Resources Research
Institute at Colorado State University?
Answer. I am not intimately familiar with the research institute
program at Colorado State University. I have a strong working
relationship with CSU's president, Al Yates, and look forward to
seeking his input regarding these programs. I have always supported
creative federal/state partnerships to further national goals. To the
extent the federal government works with State institutions to better
understand the effect of government decisions on State water resources,
I hope to support and expand such programs.
Question. How could a federal/state partnership such as this be
used to strengthen the states' role in water resources management?
Answer. I have always supported creative federal/state partnerships
to further national goals. To the extent the federal government works
with state institutions to better understand the effect of government
decisions on state water resources, I hope to support such programs.
Question. The Water Resources Research Act directs that the
Interior Secretary ``shall encourage other Federal departments,
agencies (including agencies within the department), and
instrumentalities to use and take advantage of the expertise and
capabilities which are available through the institutes established by
section 104 of this Act, on a cooperative or other basis;'' and the
Secretary ``shall encourage cooperation and coordination with other
Federal programs concerned with water resources problems and issues''
in utilizing the capabilities of these institutes. As Secretary, how
would you propose to improve utilization of the state water resources
research institutes? Are the specific examples you can cite of the
record of how the Interior Department and other federal water resources
agencies might do that?
Answer. I have not yet had an opportunity to study the details of
the state water resources research programs. From what I have heard, it
is the sort of program that I would support and recommend to the
President and Congress as a method to advance federal goals while
respecting state and local interests.
Question. In 1979, the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana submitted a
request to the Department of the Interior requesting the Department to
fulfill its trust responsibility to the Tribe by providing assistance
in the settlement of the Tribe's claim to approximately 20,000 acres of
land in Central Louisiana. The Tunica-Biloxi Tribe made it clear that
they did not wish to litigate the claim but wanted to settle the claim
for cash, land or possibly some other form of compensation. Now, twenty
two years later, the Department has still not completed its review of
the case. Will the Department, under your direction, dedicate its
resources to a full review of the Tunica-Biloxi land claim and bring a
final answer to the case in a timely manner?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of Tunica-Biloxi Tribe's
claims. I understand that the Department has several hundred pending
claims filed by Indian Tribes for federal recognition or petitions to
take land into trust. The Department's pace in processing these claims
has been unacceptable. I am committed to fulfilling President Bush's
campaign pledge to work with Indian Tribes to reorganize the Bureau of
Indian Affairs to better meet the needs of Indian Tribes. As part of
that effort, I look forward to working with you and the Tunica-Biloxi
Tribe to address their request in a timely manner.
Question. Will the Secretary support efforts being made to preserve
and recognize the importance of Creole culture not only in Louisiana
but also throughout the United States?
Answer. I am not aware of the efforts that have been made to
recognize the importance of Creole culture. I look forward to working
with you to learn more about these efforts and the role of the
Department of the Interior.
Responses to Questions From Senator Shelby
Question. The previous Secretary at the Department of the Interior
often used the Endangered Species Act to list species based more on
political science rather than ``the best scientific data available'' as
required by the Act. A case in point was the nine-year long debate over
the Alabama sturgeon. Despite the fact that even though genetic tests
performed by the Interior Department's own scientists showed that the
Alabama fish is genetically identical to the shovelnose sturgeon found
in abundance in the Mississippi River, your predecessor insisted on
listing it as a separate and distinct species. In addition, he ignored
the formal Candidate Conservation Agreement developed jointly with the
State, and support of the entire Congressional delegation, as an
alternative to listing. Moreover, to date the Department has blatantly
ignored the Act's requirement to designate the Alabama sturgeon's
critical habitat.
My question is this: What will you do to ensure the Endangered
Species Act is administered to focus on the conservation and recovery
of imperiled species and their habitat, and to work with the States in
doing so, rather than merely focusing on adding more species to the
list, often in an effort to curtail legitimate businesses as well as
recreation activities, such as hunting, fishing and logging?
Answer. I am committed to working with the States, local
communities, the private sector, and environmental organizations to
bring the focus of the Endangered Species Act back to the recovery of
endangered species. The States must be our partners in the effort to
save species. State Candidate Conservation Plans are one tool that can
be used to help conserve a species before its reaches the brink of
extinction. In implementing the ESA, whether at the listing stage or
the development of a recovery plan, I am committed to using the best
scientific data available.
Question. It is no secret that you are a supporter and defender of
private property rights. However, many of us have differing opinions as
to how the Fifth Amendment should be interpreted. What specifically is
your construction of the takings clause and how would you, as Secretary
of Interior, apply it to your duty to preserve and protect our
country's lands and resources?
Answer. My construction of the takings clause is consistent with
the U.S. Supreme Court guidelines set forth in its takings
jurisprudence over the past 15 years. The laws which I will enforce if
confirmed as Secretary of the Interior have been upheld by the courts,
and, accordingly, will be fully and fairly enforced to protect federal
interests. The federal government should make sure that any particular
application of the law does not unnecessarily create potential
liability for the United States under the takings clause. My Department
will consult with the Department of Justice as to any potential
liability concerns raised by government action.
Question. With domestic oil production at an all-time low, OPEC
cutting production, and prices so high that many cannot pay their bills
there has been a lot of discussion about increasing domestic
production. One of the options available to the United States is to
begin drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Over the years
there has been opposition to any such drilling because of environmental
concerns. Do you think that it is possible to drill in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge without endangering the environment or species
that inhabit that area? And, if the United Stated decided to pursue
such a policy how would you use your position to ensure the protection
of the surrounding environment and species?
Answer. As part of a national energy policy, President Bush
committed to opening up ANWR to environmentally responsible
exploration. He further proposed to dedicate the estimated $1.2 billion
to be earned in bonus bids to fund research into alternative energy
sources such as wind, solar and biomass. As to the unquantified
revenues to be earned from production, he proposed the creation of a
Royalties Conservation Fund to fund conservation programs, including
the reduction of the maintenance backlog on Federal lands.
As I stated during the hearing, if confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior, and if a bill is enacted authorizing exploration in ANWR, I
will work to ensure that any development is done in an environmentally
safe manner using the latest technologies and the best science.
Responses to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question. The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for
administering the Land and Water Conservation Fund that the Republican
Congress funded at $450 million for this fiscal year. Will you spend
this money on federal land acquisition as directed by Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How much will you request for the LWCF budget in FY 02,
03 and 04?
Answer. President Bush campaigned on full funding of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF Act authorizes that up to $900
million a year can be appropriated to fund LWCF programs.
Question. In your opening statement you stated that you are a
passionate conservationist. The definition of conservationist from the
Webster's Dictionary is one who will preserve, protect, and plan the
management of natural resources to prevent exploitation, destruction or
neglect. Is this what you plan to accomplish as Secretary of the
Interior?
Answer. Yes. I believe that we can manage our public lands in a way
that achieves both the preservation of our wildlife and natural
resources, and the environmentally responsible development of
resources. In some cases, that will mean that we must set aside lands
for conservation purposes. In other cases, that will mean that we must
manage public lands in a way to support multiple uses, including
grazing and mineral development, in way that balances economic activity
with environmental protection. I strongly believe we can do both.
Question. In a nutshell, how?
Answer. I believe that land management decisions for public lands
must ordinarily be made on a case-by-case basis. I intend to work the
States, local communities, Tribes, affected stakeholders, and
environmental groups to ensure that land management plans and decisions
regarding the use of our public lands are based on the best available
science and achieve the best balance between responsible use and
environmental protection. I will look for opportunities to use
incentives, such as habitat conservation plans or candidate
conservation plans, to improve habitat for wildlife. I will seek
increased funding for resource restoration efforts and the maintenance
backlog in our National Parks. I will work with Congress to identify
opportunities for new initiatives and partnerships, such as Steens
Mountain or CALFED that will result in improved land and resource
management.
Question. I place a priority on the ability to bring people
together and build consensus on divisive issues. The Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self Determination Act was the result of that
effort, as was the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Area Act of 2000. In both cases there were groups on one
side that were saying: Hold the federal lands hostage for our benefit;
and on the other side there were groups saying: Leave the rural people
to fend for themselves because we don't owe them anything. The National
Cattlemen's Association says that you are ``a strong advocate of
pulling diverse groups together, and working to resolve issues through
developing workable plans, and then looking to consensus groups to make
things happen.'' How do you intend to bring people together and build
consensus to address critical environmental issues?
Answer. As I testified during my confirmation hearing, I also
strive to bring people together on divisive issues and reach consensus
before taking any action. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, it
is my intention to work the States, local communities, Tribes, affected
stakeholders, and environmental groups to ensure that land management
plans and decisions regarding the use of our public lands are based on
the best available science and achieve the best balance between
responsible use and environmental protection as was done in the County
Payments and Steen Mountain Acts. As you know from your work on these
bills, you must invite people to participate and encourage them to be
part of the solution and not part of the problem. The Department of the
Interior must be willing to listen to their diverse ideas and
viewpoints.
Question. Please give me an example of how you have brought people
together on a divisive natural resource issue.
Answer. I believe my work with the Congress and attorneys general
from around the Country to enact the Federal Facilities Compliance Act
is a good example of bring people together to advance environmental
goals. The Act took national support in a area that had previously been
ignored by the agencies responsible for cleanups at federal facilities.
My work and the support of colleagues in state government and Congress
resulted in legislation that will mean a cleaner environment. In the
early 1990s, I worked with Senator Hank Brown to resolve conflicts
surrounding proposed wilderness areas in Colorado. We were able to
alleviate concerns and successfully establish wilderness protections.
Both of these examples reflect strong bipartisan support.
Question. Completion of the Steens Mt. land exchanges necessary to
fulfill the purposes of the Act require an addition $175,000 of funding
above the $5 million that was appropriated for this purpose. Would you
be willing to work with me and the BLM to reprogram the necessary funds
to fulfill the promise of this exceptional cooperative effort?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the level of resources that
would be required to protect and maintain each of the National
Monuments, or with the potentially competing needs of the Department,
to respond to this question at this time. If confirmed as Secretary of
the Interior, I would look forward to working with you, and
Congressional appropriators, on this issue.
Question. As Secretary of the Interior you will be responsible for
administering the Endangered Species Act. However, in an amicus brief
you challenged the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act
because the ``harm'' regulation violated property rights. The Supreme
Court of the United States did not agree with you. At the very least,
every land owner subject to some regulation under the Endangered
Species Act can be expected to begin each meeting with the Fish and
Wildlife Agency by saying : ``Secretary Norton believes what you are
doing is unconstitutional.'' How will this bring people together?
Answer. I recognize that the regulated community continues to have
significant concerns about the impact of the Fish and Wildlife
Service's regulation defining the term ``harm.'' The Supreme Court
upheld the Service's regulation and I will enforce that regulation. At
the same time, I will work with the regulated community to use other
mechanisms and incentives, such as habitat conservation plans and safe
harbor agreements, to include private landowners as partners in the
effort to save species and their habitat. I believe that using a broad
range of tools, in addition to enforcement actions, to protect
endangered species and habitat can serve to bring people together to
achieve our shared goal of recovering species.
Question. Can you give the Committee some assurance that your
position on the ESA will not undermine the ability of the Department to
implement the law of the land?
Answer. I am committed to fully enforcing the Endangered Species
Act. I will also seek to use incentives and other innovative tools to
encourage partnerships and collaborative species preservation efforts.
These efforts are intended to supplement, but not supplant, traditional
enforcement actions.
Question. The President-elect has said that he is interested in
creating a government of uniters, not dividers. Yet, you have long
associated yourself, either by employment or membership, with groups
known for their aggressive anti-federal government stances. The
Mountain States Legal Foundation is one. Can you help me reconcile how
you can be a uniter when most of the organizations with which you have
been associated throughout your career are dedicated to resolving
issues in court?
Answer. My tenure as Colorado Attorney General is marked with
efforts to build consensus and unite on environmental and other issues.
I have consistently showed an ability to work with elected officials
and administrators of both parties and look forward to forging
bipartisan support for the initiatives of the Bush-Cheney
Administration.
Question. You have consistently endorsed private property rights.
You have never acknowledged the public's interest in public lands owned
and managed by the Department of Interior for the benefit of the nation
as a whole, yet as Secretary of the Interior you will be responsible
for the acquisition, maintenance and care of more non-military federal
lands than any other member of the Cabinet. I have to ask, given your
positions on the role of the federal government: Why do you want this
job?
Answer. As I testified in my confirmation hearing, I believe my
job, if confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, will be to preserve and
protect our national natural treasures for future generations. I
recognize that the federal government owns federal land for the benefit
of the American people; that is why consensus decisionmaking on federal
land management issues is so important. That requires good stewardship
and adequate resources by the Department. I believe I bring the
experience, balance and knowledge of the issues facing the Department
to bring together federal, state, and local interests affected by the
land use decisions of the Department of the Interior. I am honored to
have the opportunity to work with President Bush and Congress to
further those goals. Nothing about the mission of the Department is
inconsistent with a respect for state and local interests.
Question. Does your definition of property rights extend beyond the
developer and include the homeowner who wishes to have quiet enjoyment
of his land?
Answer. Since ancient times, the protection of property rights has
necessarily involved the question of when the rights of a property
owner should be restricted for the good of others. The common law
recognized that property rights are not unlimited; for centuries, the
law has recognized the maxim ``so use your property as not to harm your
neighbor.'' More recently this type of balancing has been done by local
zoning laws, as well as federal and state environmental laws. The value
people place on the quiet enjoyment of their land is one foundational
element of property law.
Question. You have stated in a Harvard Law Review article that you
might go so far as to ``recognize a homesteading right to pollute or
make noise in an area.'' In your testimony before this Committee you
disavowed that view. If there were polluters next door to Crater Lake
National Park would you intervene early to stop their activities?
Answer. As I mentioned during my confirmation hearing, I did
academic research on the concept of emissions trading in the early
1980s. At that time, an emissions credit was sometimes referred to as a
``tradeable right to pollute.'' On the assumption that emissions
trading might begin with a recognition of the current emissions level
at various facilities, the initial level of pollution was considered to
be acquired by ``homesteading,'' just as the earliest settlers of land
acquired rights by being the first ones to develop an area. Inherent in
this concept is the idea of starting with the ``homesteaded'' (i.e.,
baseline) level of pollution and trading ``rights to pollute'' (i.e.,
emissions credits) to reduce present or future levels of pollution in
the most economical way. Thus, to me, a ``homesteading right to
pollute'' is one mechanism that lawmakers might select to begin
establishing an emissions trading market, much like the one that
Congress created through the Clean Air Act Amendments. Emissions
trading is one example of the innovative approaches to environmental
issues that I have championed throughout my career.
Unfortunately, this personal understanding of the terminonlogy was
not apparent in my speech that was reprinted in the Harvard Journal.
The speech was never intended to imply an unfettered ``right to
pollute'' as some have interpreted it. The speech was clear, I believe,
in indicating that I was simply describing a range of competing views
regarding property rights and the environment.
With respect to the hypothetical, I will use whatever legal means I
would have at my disposal to protect national park lands that are being
impacted by adjacent activities.
Question. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination
Act will be implemented, in part, by the Bureau of Land Management in
Oregon. The intent of the law is to allow local communities to arrive
at locally supported forest management consensus. I understand that you
support local solutions to environmental problems. I also support that.
However, I think we differ on what role we each think the federal
government should play in environmental protection and the management
of federal lands--or even IF the federal government should own land.
Given the simple fact that more than half of Oregon is owned by the
federal government, I need to be sure that you are capable of
administering the federal land management laws over which you will have
jurisdiction for the benefit of the public. Can you explain to the
Committee how you will instruct the Bureau of Land Management to manage
their timber lands in Oregon?
Answer. As I stated during the hearing, if confirmed as Secretary
of the Interior, I will faithfully seek to fulfill all statutory
requirements. As I understand it, management of BLM timber lands in
Oregon are managed jointly with the Forest Service lands under the
terms of President Clinton's Pacific Northwest Forest Plan. You and
others have raised concerns that this Plan is fallen short of the goals
set forth by President Clinton. I would welcome the opportunity to work
with you and other members of the affected delegations from both sides
of the aisle to see if we can work together on ways to improve this
situation.
Question. Can you explain to the Committee how will you direct the
Bureau of Land Management to work with local communities on land
management issues?
Answer. As I understand the Act, I believe that the local advisory
committees are a welcome step to involve local communities of interest
in BLM's programs. I look forward to working with you and the other
members of the Oregon delegation in chartering these committees, if I
am confirmed. The Department of the Interior should work in partnership
with States and local communities, particularly on any decision that
affects the use and management of public lands.
Question. Can you explain to the Committee how you will engage the
environmental community in issues of federal land management under the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act?
Answer. The provisions establishing local advisory committees in
this Act ensure involvement from the environmental community. If
confirmed I hope to work with you, the other members of the Oregon
delegation, and Oregon environmental interests to assure that they are
comfortable with their representation on these advisory committees.
Question. Under authority of the Antiquities Act, President Clinton
designated a new National Monument in Oregon, the Cascade-Siskiyou
National Monument, also known as the Soda Mountain National Monument,
in southern Oregon. The monument designation was supported by folks who
live in the area. It is a priceless natural landscape that somehow
remained almost untouched by exploitation, development and urban
sprawl. What will you do to ensure that this important natural resource
is protected?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of this Monument. It
would be my understanding, however, that the terms of the proclamation
designating Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument would govern the general
protections applicable to the Monument. Assuming that the monument
designation is consistent with the Antiquities Act of 1906, I would
look forward to working with you in determining the appropriate
management of the monument.
Question. Will you ask for adequate funds to protect and maintain
this and other national monuments for the American public?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the level of resources that
would be required to protect and maintain each of the National
Monuments, or with the potentially competing needs of the Department,
to respond to this question at this time.
Question. As Secretary of the Interior you will be responsible for
the ecological condition of grazing allotments on public land. Only by
managing these lands carefully can grazing be sustained on them. Do you
think the federal government and the grazer share a responsibility to
steward the land?
Answer. Yes. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, many
ranchers are wonderful stewards of the public land. However,
overpopulation can be problem that needs to be managed and I look
forward, if confirmed, to working with the Committee on this issue.
Question. Do you believe that grazing on public lands is a
``right'' not a ``privilege'' and the federal government had just
better get out of the way?
Answer. No. The Taylor Grazing Act and other laws and regulations
define the limits of ranchers' ability to graze cattle on federal
lands.
Question. Under President George H.W. Bush nearly 50 new national
wildlife refuges were established. The majority of these were created
with use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In Oregon we have a
series of coastal refuges that need additional land acquisition to
reach their full potential. Do you support of oppose use of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund to establish new national wildlife refuges?
Answer. Section 7 of the LWCF Act authorizes the use of LWCF monies
for the acquisition of national wildlife refuge system lands. I support
the use of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
acquisition of land for conservation purposes, including acquisitions
for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Question. Would you place new limitations on the expansion of
existing national wildlife refuges?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the situation relating to
proposed expansions of existing refuge lands to answer this question.
However, I am aware that the Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a
substantial maintenance backlog on refuge lands, as well as significant
shortfalls in the operations budget. I believe that these issues must
be taken into consideration as proposals to expand the National
Wildlife Refuge System are reviewed.
Question. In December 1998 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
adopted a policy with respect to the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath
National Wildlife Refuges in California and Oregon under which
irrigation of commercial farmland on the refuges would not be allowed
unless sufficient water was available to sustain marshes on the
refuges. In other words, scarce water supplies would not be diverted
from refuge marshes to provide irrigation water for farmland on the
refuges. Do you agree or disagree with this policy?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the Department's 1998
policy.
Question. The Klamath Refuge is a good example of a place that
cries out for a unifier. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been
criticized by farming interests for prohibiting certain pesticides from
farming on the Klamath Basin National Wildlife refuges. The agency has
been criticized by conservation organizations for continuing to allow
pesticides known to be carcinogens to be used on the refuge. How would
you resolve the complicated water and use issues in the Klamath basin?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the details of the conflicts
regarding the use of pesticides around the Klamath Basin National
Wildlife Refuges to suggest a specific plan of action to address those
conflicts. If confirmed, however, I would commit to consult with
representatives from all of the affected stakeholder groups, including
the conservation community and agricultural groups, to try to develop
an environmentally responsible management plan for pesticide use. I
would also work closely with the congressional delegation in this
matter.
Question. One issue I look forward to working with you on is how
the federal land management agencies like the BLM and Forest Service
hold rights-of-way holders financially responsible for fire suppression
costs, regardless of whether they are responsible for the damage.
The current strict liability language has serious ramifications for
utilities in states that share boundaries with federal land management
agencies. An example of the problem occurred in central Oregon when a
tree on federal forest land fell onto a power line owned by Midstate
Electric Cooperative. Although the land management agencies had refused
to allow the rural electric cooperative to remove the tree prior to the
accident, Midstate was forced to pay the entire $350,000 cost
associated with fighting the fire. Can we work together to find a more
equitable policy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How does the federal trust responsibility apply to
protection of and/or development of the tribal land base?
Answer. The trust responsibility requires that the Secretary
consult with the tribal leadership as to a reasoned course of
Secretarial action that comports with the need for protection of and/or
development of the tribal land base. I would look forward to working
with tribal leaders to resolve any issues of concern.
Question. What are your views on the protection or withdrawal or
return of lands of traditional religious importance and use to tribes?
Answer. I believe in working with tribes to protect lands of
traditional religious importance. However, the withdrawal or return of
lands of religious importance which happen to be currently outside of a
particular tribe's jurisdiction must only be made to that tribe after
consultation with the surrounding stakeholders and the Congress.
Question. What are your views on the protection of tribal lands
from mining activity and other development purposes?
Answer. In general, I believe that decisions regarding the use of
public lands must be made on a case-by-case basis and comply with
applicable State and federal laws. I believe that land management
decisions should be made in a collaborative way, with consultation of
all affected stakeholders, including States, Tribes, land users, local
communities, and environmental groups.
Mining on Indian lands should only be conducted with the consent of
the tribe at the time the mining leases are entered into by the parties
and approved by the Secretary. It is my understanding that, under
current law, mining on non-tribal lands adjacent to a reservation
should be able to continue so long as adequate environmental safeguards
are included in the mine plan of operation.
Question. How do you view the accommodation or protection of,
access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by tribal religious
practitioners and the need to avoid adversely affecting the physical
integrity of such sites in federal land management decisions, as set
forth in Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specific terms of
Executive Order 13007 to respond to this question at this time. In
general, I believe that the Department must work with the Tribes to
protect Indian Sacred Sites whenever possible, consistent with the law
and environmentally responsible use of public lands. I subscribe to the
belief that the accommodation of access to and ceremonial use of Indian
sacred sites by tribes should occur whenever possible so long as the
accommodation does not conflict with the Secretary's other federal
responsibilities as a land manager.
Question. There are currently 36 undeveloped oil leases situated on
the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California. Development of
these leases has been strongly opposed by the state of California and
the associated local coastal communities. This Administration has
signaled its intent to prioritize the development of domestic oil and
gas sources. Will you encourage development of offshore leases in
states like California where there is strong and persistent opposition
to the development of such leases? Past Administrations have used their
executive authority to place a moratorium on offshore oil and gas
drilling in currently undeveloped areas. Would you recommend that such
a moratorium be continued under this Administration?
Answer. President Bush pledged to support the existing moratoria on
OCS leases. He also committed to working with California and Florida
leaders and local affected communities to determine on a case-by-case
basis whether or not drilling should occur on existing, but undeveloped
leases. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I will honor these
commitments and promise to work with all parties to reach a consensus
on how undeveloped leases should be handled and the extension of
existing moratoria.
Question. There are now well over 1,000 species that have been
federally recognized as threatened or endangered species. The
Endangered Species Act compels the Secretary of Interior to identify
habitat that is critical to the recovery of these species and protect
that habitat from further degradation. Many have alleged that our
limited success in recovering species is due to our failure to protect
the habitat upon which these species depend. In states like California,
where there are a large number of listed species and a great deal of
habitat that has been identified as ``critical habitat,'' protection of
this habitat has been controversial. How would you interpret the
Interior Department's obligations to protect and conserve the critical
habitat of these threatened and endangered species?
Answer. The Endangered Species Act requires the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service, to designate
critical habitat for listed species. Under the law, the Fish and
Wildlife Service is further required to ensure that activities
authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies do not
jeopardize species through the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. I am committed to enforcing those requirements. I am
also committed to work with private landowners to preserve habitat
through habitat conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, and other
innovative tools.
Question. Do you consider federal efforts to protect species'
habitat on private lands to be a violation of private property rights
that would require compensation of the affected landowners?
Answer. As I stated during the hearing, I believe that the
determination of whether a regulatory taking has occurred must be made
on a case-by-case basis under the guidelines set forth by the Supreme
Court. Under those guidelines, I believe it is clear that the federal
government can ordinarily enforce the take prohibition of section 9 of
the Endangered Species Act without triggering the compensation
requirement of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Question. How do you plan to ensure that the Interior Department
fulfills its duty to recover listed species?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the efforts that are
currently being made by the Department to recover species to respond to
this question at this time. However, I am committed to returning the
focus on the Endangered Species Program to recovering species. In
addition to working to ensure that recovery plans are developed and
implemented for all listed species, I look forward to using incentives
and other innovative tools to encourage recovery efforts by States and
private landowners. I look forward to working with Congress, the
States, private landowners, the environmental community, and other
interested stakeholders to achieve this goal.
Question. The Interior Department recently announced its denial of
a permit for the Glamis Imperial gold mine that was proposed for
development in Imperial County, California. This mine was rejected on
the grounds that it would have caused undue degradation to the site's
environmental and cultural resources. Do you think it is appropriate
under current mining law for the Secretary to reject mines like the
proposed Glamis Imperial Mine on these grounds?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specifics of the Glamis mine
proposal or the basis on which the mine was rejected. I look forward to
learning more about the proposed Glamis project and working with
Congress to ensure that all new mining projects maintain an appropriate
balance between legitimate mineral development activities and
preservation of important environmental and cultural resources.
Question. The Federal government receives royalties from private
oil and gas companies that extract oil and gas resources from federal
lands. Recently, the Interior Department finalized regulations to
ensure that oil royalties paid to the federal government are based upon
the fair market value of that oil. This new policy will ensure that
taxpayers receive equitable compensation for these resources, and is
expected to generate approximately $67 million in additional revenue.
Are you prepared to support this new rule which fairly compensates
taxpayers for oil taken from federal lands?
Answer. I share with you a desire to ensure that the American
taxpayer is fairly compensated for resource development on Federal
lands. However, I am unfamiliar with the details of this rule but, if
confirmed, I will review the rule and then decide how to proceed.
Question. The Secretary of the Interior has the discretion to
accept these royalties as either payment-in-kind or payment-in-value.
Historically, there have been few instances of royalties being paid in-
kind. As Secretary, would you encourage the use of royalty payments in-
kind?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the legal options available to
the Secretary of the Interior on royalty collections and then decide
the appropriate way to proceed.
Question. Recently, the National Park Service developed a detailed
plan for the future management of Yosemite National Park. This plan was
developed after considerable input from all of the affected
stakeholders. Central to this plan is the notion that visitors to the
park should be discouraged from driving their vehicles into the park
and encouraged to travel through the park on a park transit system. As
Secretary of the Interior, will you actively support implementation of
the new Yosemite Valley Management Plan? Will you be aggressive about
developing similar management plans for the many other national parks
that are suffering environmental degradation because their management
practices have not kept pace with the growing numbers of visitors?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the Yosemite Valley
Management Plan. As a general matter, I support the concept of
management plans for our public lands and believe that they represent
an important decision-making tool for land managers. For these plans to
be successful, I believe it is important that they be developed in
consultation with the affected States, local communities, affected
stakeholders, and environmental groups.
Question. In 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a
policy for Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges in
California and Oregon that prevents irrigation on commercial farmland
on the refuges unless sufficient water was available to sustain the
refuge's marshes. Do you support this policy which gives priority to
the refuge's ecological resources over commercial farming?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the Department's 1998
policy.
Question. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 set new requirements for the management of refuges. In response,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued regulations establishing
procedures for determining what uses are compatible with the mission of
the refuge system and the mission of each individual refuge. Do you
believe farming is compatible with the mission of the Tule Lake and
Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges?
Answer. I have not yet had an opportunity to review the
Compatibility Policy, and am not in a position at this time to assess
how it might affect the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife
Refuges. I am also aware that the Fish and Wildlife Service recently
issued a draft Appropriate Uses Policy that may impact activities on
refuges such as Tule Lake or the Lower Klamath. I look forward to
learning more about the Fish and Wildlife Service's policies
implementing the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act and about the
530 Refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Question. What uses would you deem to be incompatible with the
mission of the national wildlife refuge system?
Answer. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
recognizes that wildlife refuges can support multiple uses, with
priority public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Some
refuges appropriately support oil and gas development, communications
easements, and mining. The determination of what specific activities
are appropriate on a particular refuge must be made on a case-by-case
basis, consistent with the law.
Question. Under CERCLA (or Superfund), the Interior Department has
the responsibility to act on behalf of the public, as trustee of
natural resources under its jurisdiction, to recover for damages caused
by the release of a hazardous substance. What is your position on this
type of liability under CERCLA?
Answer. Under section 107(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The Department of the
Interior is responsible as a land manager and trustee of natural
resources for recovering damages for the restoration of any resources
under its trusteeship. The Department is also responsible for
promulgating regulations implementing this section of CERCLA. As I
stated during the hearing, I am committed to enforcing the law. That
applies to the Department's obligations under section 107(f).
Question. Do you intend to vigorously pursue the assessment and
recovery of such natural resources damages, for example, at the Hudson
River PCB Superfund site and the Fox River?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the Hudson River
Superfund site or Fox River. However, to the extent that the Department
is a trustee of resources affected by the release of hazardous
substances at either of these sites, I am committed to seeking
appropriate restoration of the natural resources that have been
adversely impacted.
Question. Will you pursue the recovery of damages that result from
activities that predated CERCLA but that are causing continuing injury?
Answer. I will enforce the law, including any decisions of the
federal courts that define the scope of liability for continuing
injuries to natural resources resulting from pre-1980 activities.
Question. When you were Colorado Attorney General, you decided not
to sign two letters, circulated to all state Attorneys General for
signature, that were sent to Senator Robert C. Smith (then Chair of the
Senate Superfund Subcommittee) in 1995, one supporting CERCLA's
retroactive liability provisions, which was signed by 40 state
Attorneys General, and the other supporting the natural resource
damages provisions of CERCLA, signed by 35 state Attorneys General?
Answer. I do not have access to the specific requests from my
colleagues regarding the letters mentioned in this question. Generally,
however, these letters apparently dealt with Congressional proposals to
amend CERCLA and not with implementation of CERCLA. As Attorney
General, Colorado sought and obtained natural resources damages that
were retroactive against the polluter on many occasions. I served as
one of Colorado's Superfund natural resource trustees.
Question. Can you please explain why you decided not sign those two
letters?
Answer. Please see my response to the prior question.
Question. Do you support the current retroactive liability
requirements under Superfund?
Answer. The Secretary of the Department of the Interior is not
responsible for implementing the Superfund cleanup program. That is
within the jurisdiction of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. As a trustee for natural resources, however, the
Secretary is responsible for the recovery of natural resource damages
under section 107(f) of CERCLA. I am committed to fulfilling the
Department's obligations in that regard, consistent with the law.
Question. Do you support a strong natural resource damage recovery
provision that allows trustees to protect and restore damaged public
resources?
Answer. Yes.
Responses to Questions From Senator Daschle
Question. What Indian affairs issues should be among the top five
priorities for the DOI in the first year of the Bush-Cheney
Administration?
Answer. President Bush pledged to commit over $900 million over
five years to address the maintenance backlog in Indian schools in
accordance with the Bureau of Indian Affairs' priority list, as well as
to construct six new schools. If confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior, fulfilling this commitment will be my first priority. I need
to learn more about the BIA and ongoing programs within the bureau
before identifying other priorities.
Question. What are other major issues involving Indian affairs
(including budget issues) that may or should require Secretarial
involvement in the first year?
Answer. At this time, I need to learn more about the BIA, including
funding issues, before deciding what issues will require Secretarial
involvement. If I am confirmed as Secretary, I would seek to consult
with interested stakeholders, like yourself and the tribes, to reach
these decisions.
Question. What Interior-related Indian affairs issues may or should
require Presidential attention?
Answer. Fulfillment of President Bush's campaign commitment to
provide over $900 million in funding over five years to address the
maintenance backlog in Indian schools in accordance with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs' priority list, as well as to construct six new schools.
Question. What opportunities are there to improve public relations
for the DOI by achieving ``win-win'' solutions regarding Indian affairs
issues in the first year?
Answer. As I stated in my confirmation hearing, I take seriously
the trustee responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior and
recognize that the situation in Indian Country is not what it should
be. I am convinced that we can do better in this sphere. If confirmed
as Secretary of the Interior, I intend to work with all interested
stakeholders, including members of Congress, to improve the reputation
of the Department of the Interior in Indian Country.
Question. What internal issues involving Indian affairs (i.e.
management, administrative) need to be addressed at the DOI?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the present situation to
answer this question, but, if confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I
look forward to working with Congress and other interested stakeholders
on this matter.
Question. What are the most significant external challenges
involving Indian affairs facing the Department in the first year (i.e.
Congress, Tribes, private sector, interest groups, public relations,
press)?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the current situation to
answer this question. However, as stated previously, if confirmed as
Secretary of the Interior, I intend to consult with all interested
stakeholders, including members of Congress, to determine the external
challenges facing the Department of the Interior. There is much that I
believe we can do, in partnership with our nation's Native American
tribes, to improve conditions and create a more hopeful future.
Question. What administrative actions involving Indian affairs
(i.e. Organization, Executive Orders, directives, rule-making,
litigation) should be reviewed in the first six months of the Bush-
Cheney Administration and what action would you like to see?
Answer. President Bush has campaigned on the need to provide
additional funding to Indian education needs including the construction
of new schools as well as the improvement of old ones. If confirmed as
Secretary of the Interior, I look forward to working with you on the
issue of developing a list of administrative actions that could improve
the lives of Indians all across America.
Question. As Attorney General, you filed a brief for the Supreme
Court that challenged the implementation of Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act. Your argument was not adopted by the court. Would you
still be comfortable enforcing Section 9 as construed by the Supreme
Court majority?
Answer. Yes.
Question. As you know, there is widespread concern about cabinet
officials being willing to support civil rights laws, and you have
noted your opposition to affirmative action policies in the past. As
Secretary of the Interior, would you enforce federal civil rights laws
the Department is required to follow?
Answer. Yes.
Question. South Dakota is part of the prairie pothole region, and
has numerous small, temporary wetlands that provide habitat for
waterfowl. What is your view on the conservation of these small
wetlands?
Answer. The prairie pothole region provided an early example of
cooperative public-private land management, since the Fish and Wildlife
Service protected much of this important waterfowl habitat by
negotiating protective easements with landowners. I hope we can learn
from this experience to enhance FWS efforts in this region and across
the country. The Department of the Interior should also cooperate with
the agencies primarily responsible for wetlands regulation, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Responses to Questions From Senator Durbin
Question. Are you familiar with the Interior Department's August
1997 proposed R.S. 2477 regulations, and do you support them?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specifics of the proposed
R.S. 2477 regulations to respond to this question at this time. I would
be happy to follow up with you at a later date after I have had an
opportunity to review the proposed regulations and the related
Congressional debate.
Question. If not, in what respects do you disagree with them?
Answer. I am not able at this time to take a specific position with
respect to the substance of the regulations.
Question. And do you plan to change the agency's current policy on
R.S. 2477?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the Department's policy on
R.S. 2477 to respond to this question at this time.
Question. Would you reinstate the Hodel policy on R.S. 2477?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the Hodel policy on R.S. 2477
to be able to respond to this question.
Question. Millions of acres of public land managed by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) have never been inventoried for their wilderness
qualities. Other areas known to have wilderness qualities were passed
over during incomplete inventories. What would you do to support the
continuation of wilderness inventories on BLM lands?
Answer. I am not familiar with the status of BLM's wilderness
inventory program. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I will
commit to reviewing the current program before deciding how to proceed.
Question. And what would you do to protect unprotected wildlands
that the BLM has inventoried and found to qualify for wilderness
designation?
Answer. I need to learn more about BLM's inventory program before
deciding how to proceed.
Question. Off-road vehicles are a growing threat to sensitive
public lands managed by the BLM, causing soil erosion, damaging
vegetation and disrupting wildlife. Are you aware of the full extent of
this problem, and what will you do to protect wild and or roadless
areas from degradation by ORVs?
Answer. I share with you a desire to minimize soil erosion, damage
to vegetation and disruption to wildlife on sensitive public lands
managed by the BLM. I do not know the specifics of how ORVs impact
public lands and need to learn more before deciding how to proceed.
Question. Will you seek increased funding for ORV monitoring and
enforcement?
Answer. I need to learn about the current level of funding for ORV
monitoring and enforcement activities. If confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior, I will need to review this and other budget matters more
thoroughly before making any recommendation.
Question. Many BLM Resource Management Plans are out of date. Some
as much as 20 years old. What will you do to update BLM management
plans?
Answer. I am aware that many BLM Resource Management Plans are out
of date. I am not, however, familiar with the magnitude of this issue
nor steps that have, or can be taken, to update these plans. If
confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I will need to learn more about
this before deciding how to proceed.
Question. What are your top funding priorities for the Interior
Department, and in particular BLM?
Answer. I need to learn more about the Department of the Interior
budget before making any recommendations about funding levels for
fiscal year 2002. I can commit to seeking to fulfill President Bush's
campaign proposals including full-funding of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and progress towards elimination of the National Park
System maintenance backlog.
Responses to Questions From Senator Levin
Question. What is your position on drilling for oil and natural gas
in the Great Lakes?
Answer. I have no position.
Question. An agreement signed by the Governors of the Great Lakes
states emphatic opposition to drilling beneath the Great Lakes, do you
support such a prohibition? Would you support including onshore slant
drilling to such a prohibition?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specifics of this issue. As a
general matter, I believe that land management decisions must be made
on a case-by-case basis. If confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I
intend to work the States, local communities, Tribes, affected
stakeholders, and environmental groups to ensure that land management
plans and decisions regarding the use of our public lands are based on
the best available science and achieve the best balance between
responsible use and environmental protection.
Question. Canada currently allows offshore drilling beneath the
Great Lakes. As Secretary of the Interior, what steps would you take to
prevent this practice from expanding or stopping it outright?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specifics of this issue and
would need to learn more before deciding how to proceed. If confirmed
as Secretary of the Interior, I will consult with the Secretary of
State on this or any matter involving another country.
Responses to Questions From Senator Harry Reid
Question. As Secretary of the Interior, James Watt directed the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand oil and gas leasing, timber
harvesting, and other extractive commercial activities within the
National Wildlife Refuge System. In contrast, the Clinton
administration has generally reduced these activities within the
System. Do you think the level of commercial activities currently
allowed within the National Wildlife Refuge System is too much, not
enough, or about right?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the current activities
allowed on National Wildlife Refuges to make an independent assessment
as to whether or not the level of activity is appropriate. As a general
matter, I believe that wildlife refuges can be managed in a manner that
supports multiple uses. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act recognizes that wildlife refuges can support multiple uses, with
priority public uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Some
refuges appropriately support oil and gas development, communications
easements, and mining. The determination of what specific activities
are appropriate on a particular refuge must be made on a case-by-case
basis, consistent with the law.
Question. In October, 1992 several conservation organizations sued
the Department of the Interior for allowing incompatible commercial,
military, and recreational activities within the National Wildlife
Refuge System. In 1993, the Clinton Administration settled the
litigation by eliminating grazing and modifying other uses on some
specific refuges. The settlement also required the Fish and Wildlife
Service to review all activities within the National Wildlife Refuge
System to ensure that each use was compatible with the purposes of the
refuges on which it was occurring as required by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. The settlement required the
Fish and Wildlife Service to eliminate activities not found to be
compatible. Do you agree or disagree with this settlement of the
lawsuit?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specifics of the
litigation to evaluate the settlement. As a general matter, I support
the concept that is embodied in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act to the effect that all uses of a refuge must be
compatible with the underlying purposes of the refuge. As I stated
above, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act also
expressly recognizes that wildlife refuges can support multiple uses.
The determination about what uses are appropriate and compatible with
the underlying purposes of a refuge must be made on a case-by-case
basis.
Question. Do you believe that any of the activities discontinued on
one or more National Wildlife Refuges should be reinstated, or should
such changes in management be allowed to stand?
Answer. I believe that the determination of what activities are
appropriate on any particular refuge must be made on a case-by-case
basis. I am not familiar enough with the specific management changes
that have been imposed to respond to this question.
Question. If you believe that discontinued activities should be
reinstated, which specific commercial, military, or recreational
activities should be reinstated within the Refuge System, why, and
under what circumstances?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specific management
changes that have been imposed to respond to this question. I would be
happy to review this matter in more detail once I am confirmed and
follow up with you at a later date.
Question. Are there any activities that you believe should never be
allowed within the National Wildlife Refuge System?
Answer. I believe that the determination of what activities are
appropriate should be governed by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
Question. In May, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued
final agency policy on preparing Comprehensive Conservation Plans
required under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997. That policy requires each refuge to conduct wilderness reviews as
part of the planning process. Refuges must review both lands that have
never been studied and lands that were previously reviewed but not
recommended for wilderness designation to determine if they currently
qualify for this designation. Do you agree with this policy?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specific elements of this
policy to respond to this question at this time. I would be pleased to
follow up with you at a later date after I have had an opportunity to
review the policy.
Question. If confirmed, will you propose changes to this policy?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specific elements of this
policy to respond to this question at this time. I would be pleased to
follow up with you at a later date after I have had an opportunity to
review the policy.
Question. Under President George H.W. Bush, nearly 50 new national
wildlife refuges were established. The majority of these were created
with use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Under the Clinton
Administration, a similar number have also been established under this
funding source. Do you support or oppose use of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund to establish new national wildlife refuges?
Answer. Section 7 of the LWCF Act authorizes the use of LWCF monies
for the acquisition of national wildlife refuge system lands. I support
the use of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
acquisition of land for conservation purposes, including acquisitions
for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Question. Would you place any new limitations on the establishment
of new national wildlife refuges?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the situation relating to
proposed expansions of existing refuge lands to answer this question.
However, I am aware that the Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a
substantial maintenance backlog on refuge lands, as well as significant
shortfalls in the operations budget. I believe that these issues must
be taken into consideration as proposals to expand the National
Wildlife Refuge System are reviewed.
Question. In October, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
issued final agency regulations and policy establishing procedures for
determining whether ongoing or proposed activities on national wildlife
refuges are compatible with the mission of the Refuge System and the
purposes of the individual refuges on which they occur. Such
regulations were required by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997. The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined
that a use that undermines the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of a refuge will be considered to be incompatible.
Do you agree or disagree with this regulation?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specifics of the
regulations or policy to respond to this question. As a general matter,
I support the principle reflected in the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act that all activities allowed on a wildlife refuge
must be compatible with the underlying purposes of the refuge. I would
be happy to follow up with you at a later date after I have had an
opportunity to review the compatibility policy in greater detail.
Question. If confirmed, will you propose changes to this policy?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specifics of the
regulations or policy to respond to this question. As a general matter,
I support the principle reflected in the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act that all activities allowed on a wildlife refuge
must be compatible with the underlying purposes of the refuge. I would
be happy to follow up with you at a later date after I have had an
opportunity to review the compatibility policy in greater detail.
Question. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been criticized
for prohibiting certain pesticides from being used in National Wildlife
Refuges. The agency has also been criticized by conservation
organizations for continuing to allow pesticides known to be
carcinogens, endocrine disrupters, and neurotoxins to be used. Should
pesticides that are known to be carcinogens, endocrine disrupters, or
neurotoxins be allowed on national wildlife refuges?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with this issue to respond to this
question. I would be happy to follow up with you after I have had an
opportunity to learn more about the pesticides in question, the reason
for their application; and the potential risks that they may present.
Question. If so, for what purpose should they be allowed and under
what circumstances?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with this issue to respond to this
question. I would be happy to follow up with you after I have had an
opportunity to learn more about the pesticides in question, the reason
for their application; and the potential risks that they may present.
If confirmed, would you take action either to restore pesticides
eliminated by the Fish and Wildlife Service or to eliminate harmful
pesticides allowed on Refuges?
I am not familiar enough with the issue of pesticide use on or
around refuges to respond to this question. I would be happy to work
with you after I have been confirmed to review the question of
pesticide application on and near refuge lands.
In 1998, the State of Wyoming sued the Department of the Interior
over management of the National Elk Refuge. The state argued that the
U.S. Constitution and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 gave states the authority to manage resident wildlife even
on national wildlife refuges. The Wyoming District Court found that the
1997 Act did the opposite, affirming the federal government's lead
authority to manage all wildlife on national wildlife refuges. Do you
agree or disagree with the Wyoming District Court Judge's finding?
I am not familiar with this case. However, as I stated during the
hearing, as a general matter, I am committed to enforcing the law as it
is interpreted by the courts. I also believe, however, that the States
are important partners in the conservation of wildlife and habitat.
While the federal government has lead responsibility in the management
of national wildlife refuges, it is important that we work together
with the States.
Question. Please describe your views on the extent of federal and
state authority to manage wildlife on the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
Answer. I believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead
agency responsible for managing our national wildlife refuge lands. I
also recognize that States also play an important role in the
conservation of wildlife, both on and off refuge lands. For example,
State hunting laws apply to hunting on national wildlife refuges. I
believe it is important for the Fish and Wildlife Service to work in
partnership with the States in order to achieve the fundamental
purposes of our National Wildlife Refuge System.
Question. In the 1980s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
concluded that jetties proposed for construction on the Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina would be incompatible with
the purpose for which that refuge was established. The Clinton
Administration has reaffirmed this determination. Do you agree or
disagree with these findings?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the details of the proposed
jetties on the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge to respond to your
question at this time. I would be happy to follow up with you at a
later time after I have had an opportunity to review the findings in
more detail.
Question. If confirmed, would you take action to attempt to
overturn these previous determinations?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the details of the proposed
jetties on the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge to respond to your
question at this time. I would be happy to follow up with you at a
later time after I have had an opportunity to review the findings in
more detail.
Question. In 2000, the Interior Department was criticized for
allowing more water to flow in the Klamath River to benefit endangered
salmon. Please explain your views on the management of water to meet
the needs of endangered species in situations, such as with the Klamath
River, where adequate water supplies may not exist to meet all the
desires for water.
Answer. The management of water resources presents a particular
challenge for the Department of the Interior. In carrying out its
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, the Department must
maintain an appropriate balance between the needs of species and the
needs of agricultural interests, municipalities, and other water users.
At the same time, the Department must respect State water law. I
believe that my experience in Colorado negotiating water rights
settlements would help me address this issue as Secretary of the
Interior. I believe I have a proven track record of being able to bring
opposing sides together, balancing the needs of water users with those
of the environment and species.
Question. In Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a
Better Oregon, the Supreme Court affirmed a Fish and Wildlife Service
regulation prohibiting degradation of endangered species habitat on
private land. Please describe your views on this case.
Answer. As I stated at the hearing, I am committed to enforcing the
Endangered Species Act. Although I filed an amicus brief in my capacity
as Attorney General for Colorado in support of those who were
challenging the regulation, I recognize that the Supreme Court upheld
the regulation and that is now the law of the land. I will enforce the
regulation.
Question. Do you believe that the Endangered Species Act protect
against the destruction of endangered species habitat on private land?
Answer. The Endangered Species Act prohibits the take of an
endangered species on private land. In some cases, the destruction of
habitat can constitute a take. This is a determination that must be
made on a case-by-case basis.
Question. If confirmed, will you propose changing this aspect of
the Act?
Answer. At this time, I do not have any plans to propose any
legislative changes to the Endangered Species Act. I look forward to
working with the Congress at some time in the future, however, to
evaluate whether amendments to the Act may be desirable to achieve
better results for species. Among other things, I may consider
amendments to provide statutory authorization for the landowner
incentives that have been implemented by the Clinton Administration.
Question. You may be aware that in November of last year, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion on ``The
Operation of the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System, Operation
and Maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation
Project, and Operation of the Kansas River Reservoir System'' pursuant
to its responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.
As Secretary of the Interior, would you support managing the
Missouri River in a way that meets the needs of threatened and
endangered species, promotes recreation and tourism on the river, and
supports traditional uses of the river in a balanced way?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the details of the Missouri
River Biological Opinion to assess whether or not it represents a
balanced approach to the management of the Missouri River Main Stem
Reservoir System. As a general matter, I support the management of the
River in a way that balances the needs of the species with recreation
and industrial uses, as well as public safety. If confirmed, I pledge
to work with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Congress to achieve
that result.
Question. As Secretary of the Interior would you continue to
support the Fish and Wildlife Service's leading role, in the context of
revising the ``Master Manual'' on operations of the Missouri River main
stem reservoir system, in helping the Corps of Engineers to prevent the
extinction of listed species on the Missouri River?
Answer. As I stated above, I am not familiar with the details of
the Missouri River Biological Opinion and do not know what role in
particular the Fish and Wildlife Service has played. It is clear,
however, that under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife
Service is responsible for the preparation of the Biological Opinion,
including the jeopardy assessment and reasonable and prudent measures
accompanying any incidental take statement. I look forward to learning
more about the specifics of this situation and pledge to work with the
Corps of Engineers and the Congress to implement measures to prevent
the extinction of the listed species on the Missouri.
Question. Will you commit to not rescinding or modifying the Fish
and Wildlife Service's November 2000 Biological Opinion? If you cannot
commit to this, do you have any plans to rescind or modify this
Opinion? What facts or circumstances would can you to rescind or modify
the Opinion?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the specific facts underlying
the Biological Opinion to respond to this question. I would be happy to
follow up with you after I have had an opportunity to review the
Biological Opinion in greater detail.
Question. President George H.W. Bush established a goal of ``no net
loss'' of wetlands. The Supreme Court's recent ruling in Solid Waste
Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may
affect the attainment of this goal. Do you support the ``no net loss''
of wetlands goal?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the Supreme Court's decision
in Cook County to evaluate what impact, if any, it will have on federal
wetlands policy. The Secretary of the Interior does not have primary
responsibility for managing wetlands. That is under the jurisdiction of
the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. I do
not have an independent position with respect to former President
Bush's ``no net loss'' policy. If confirmed as Secretary of the
Interior, I will follow the policy of President Bush.
Question. Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision in the
SWANCC case? Why or why not?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the decision of the Supreme
Court to respond to this question.
Question. Given the Court's SWANCC decision, how should the federal
government proceed in implementing a ``no net loss'' policy?
Answer. I am not aware of what the Bush Administration's policy is
with respect to wetlands and am not in a position at this time to make
any specific recommendations as to how that policy should be
implemented.
Question. What do you believe is the appropriate role of the
Interior Department in protecting the nation's wetlands?
Answer. The Department of the Interior is not the primary federal
agency responsible for the management or regulation of wetlands. The
Department does preserve and protect wetlands as habitat for endangered
species and migratory waterfowl.
Responses to Questions From Senator Torricelli
Question. The Pinelands National Reserve, now over 20 years old, is
a unique way to provide for natural resource protection as a joint
federal-state partnership. Are you in favor of expanding this model to
protect other critical landscapes across the nation?
Answer. I support Federal, State and local partnerships, especially
with respect to difficult land management decisions. If confirmed as
Secretary of the Interior, I will seek to foster intergovernmental
partnerships.
Question. You are, by virtue of federal act, represented as a
member of the Pinelands Commission, a body overseeing the plan
protecting the unique natural resources of the Pine Barrens of New
Jersey. The Commission, established as a partnership between state and
federal government more than two decades ago, has been criticized
recently for not applying its regulations in a consistent manner,
sometimes in contravention to its own rules. The current Secretary of
Interior has supported one such vote on appeal. How would you respond
should a similar circumstance arise?
Answer. I am unfamiliar with the Pinelands Commission and the
specific obligations of the Secretary of the Interior as a Commission
member. If confirmed, I will need to learn more about the Pinelands so
that I can fulfill my statutory obligations for the benefit of not only
New Jersey residents but also all Americans. I can say that I support
uniform and consistent application of all rules and regulations.
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
[Note: Due to the enormous amount of materials received,
only a representative sample of statements follow. Additional
documents and statements have been retained in committee
files.]
----------
Ute Mountain Tribe,
Southern Ute Indian Tribe,
January 8, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Murkowski: We are writing in support of the
nomination of Gale Norton to serve as Secretary of the Interior, and
hope you will share our remarks with members of the Committee who will
visit with her during her upcoming confirmation hearing,
Our Tribes have enjoyed a strong working relationship with the
State of Colorado for many years. As Attorney General, Gale Norton
furthered that relationship through her commitment to resolving issues
in a fair and thoughtful way. She is an open-minded leader who listens
and then works toward a resolution. We were able to agree to a gaming
compact with the State of Colorado during her tenure as Attorney
General. In addition, her strong and adamant support of the Colorado
Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act was a major factor in what
ultimately became successful legislation to modify the Animas-La Plata
Project and still meet the obligation to the Ute people of Colorado.
Ms. Norton is a very capable individual whose public service is not
based on a desire for accolade or credit, but on a commitment to
resolve issues, no matter how controversial.
We proudly support her nomination and enthusiastically encourage
the Senate to approve her nomination.
Sincerely,
Ernest House,
Chairman, Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe.
Vida Peabody,
Acting Chairman, Southern
Ute Indian Tribe.
______
National Water Resources Association,
Arlington, VA, January 11, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the membership of the National
Water Resources Association, I am writing in strong support of the
Honorable Gale A. Norton to be the next Secretary of the Department of
the Interior.
Several of our members and I have worked with Ms. Norton during her
tenure as Attorney General of the State of Colorado. Without exception,
we have found her receptive to all points of view, fair-minded, and
beyond reproach.
Ms. Norton's record in Colorado is exemplary. On many divisive
issues she was the architect of reason and concensus. We would question
anyone who has worked with her that challenges her objectivity,
fairness and integrity.
President-elect Bush has made an outstanding selection for Interior
Secretary and we give our unqualified and strongest support for her
confirmation. We urge the Committee to give its unanimous and
expeditious endorsement of Ms. Norton as the next Secretary of the
Interior.
Respectfully yours,
Thomas F. Donnelly,
Executive Vice President.
______
January 12, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Co-Chairs, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: The Department of the Interior (DOI)--encompassing
agencies such as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and the Bureau of Land Management--has the unique
responsibility of safeguarding America's few remaining and most
precious natural treasures and links to our shared natural and cultural
history. I strongly believe that those lands and waters, many of which
are priceless and irreplaceable, require the highest environmental
protection as mandated by federal statutes. The Department of the
Interior must be led by someone who recognizes this fact.
Gale Norton's career history working on land management issues
illustrates her apparent priorities in the area of natural resource
management. From this history, it appears that Ms. Norton believes that
``free market'' schemes can address many of the threats facing our
public lands. Unfortunately, our nation's history is littered with the
costly and damaging failures of similar market based land management
plans. Because I do not wish to see America's land management policies
hijacked for the short-term profit motives of exploitative industries,
I do not feel that Ms. Norton is the best-qualified candidate to act as
head steward of our nation's most valuable resources. Nothing in Ms.
Norton career history seems to suggest that she values natural
resources any more than they are worth at market-value.
Our nation's natural heritage is simply too precious to entrust to
anyone except a person with the utmost reverence for those resources.
Sadly, I am not convinced that Ms. Norton will make the protection of
our natural resources from needless destruction by extractive
industries as high a priority as necessary. Therefore, I call upon you
to oppose her nomination for Interior Secretary and lead/support a
filibuster of her nomination if it reaches the full Senate. Finally, I
call upon you to urge President Elect Bush to nominate a more suitable
candidate.
Sincerely,
Renate Wallner,
H. Sc. Ed.
______
Needham, MA, January 12, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing to urge you to reject Gale
Norton's confirmation as Secretary of the Interior.
The Department of the Interior is a major office in the national
government, which oversees our national preservation of land, water,
forests, natural resources, wildlife and their wise use and management
as well. The nominee to head Interior, Gale Norton, is well known for
her interest in accommodating corporate demands for more access to
energy and raw materials, at the expense of our nation's natural
heritage.
In accepting her nomination to serve as Secretary of the Interior,
Gale Norton promised to make better use of the two-thirds of the
nation's lands in federal hands--including access for business.
Gale Norton's pro-growth, pro-oil, and anti-regulation positions
are well documented:
As President Reagan's Associate Solicitor at the Interior
Department, she supported oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge and she has endorsed President-Elect Bush's advocacy for
developing these pristine lands for oil resources.
Gale Norton supports Colorado's ``self-audit'' law (which
the current EPA opposed). It allows corporations to monitor
their own compliance with environmental regulations.
Gale Norton worked at the Mountain States Legal Foundation,
which advocates ``takings'' legislation and logging and mining
on the nation's public lands. It also is vigorously opposed to
the very notion of the Endangered Species Act.
The Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility of advising on
and consenting to presidential appointments. As our elected officials,
the Senate has a duty to fully review the writings, speeches,
interviews, and public records of nominees for Executive appointments.
In light of the historically close nature of the presidential election,
the Senate should be particularly careful in its review of nominees.
President-elect Bush received no mandate for conservative activism or
environmental exploitation.
Please protect our treasured natural resources and oppose Gale
Norton's confirmation as Secretary of the Interior.
Sincerely,
William and Diana Lehman.
______
San Francisco, CA, January 12, 2001.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Please include this letter in the hearing record
of Jan. 18, 2001 for the confirmation hearing of Gale Norton as
Secretary of the Interior.
I am opposed to the confirmation of Gale Norton for the following
reasons:
Ms. Norton is cut from the same cloth as James Watt, having
spent four years as a staff at the Mountain States Legal
Foundation where Watt served as its first President.
Ms. Norton was national chairman of the Coalition for
Republican Environmental Advocates, a corporate front group
whose steering committee includes registered lobbyists for the
oil, auto, mining, and alcoholic beverage industries.
As Attorney General of Colorado, Ms. Norton filed an amicus
brief in the 1995 Sweet Home case before the Supreme Court
opposing the position of the Department of the Interior and the
goals and policies of the Endangered Species Act.
I believe that the Secretary of the Interior should be an
individual whose past record demonstrates a commitment and ability to
advance the mission of the Department of the Interior. This mission is
to manage and preserve our public lands in an environmentally and
scientifically sound fashion for the equitable benefit of all American
taxpayers.
Ms. Norton's past activities abundantly demonstrate that she would
undermine, not uphold, this mission. She should be rejected for this
critical post.
Sincerely,
Stanley E. Kaufman, M.D.
______
Raleigh, NC, January 12, 2001.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am in opposition to Gale Norton as
Interior Secretary. Her past record does not indicate that she is the
person who should be entrusted with decisions about our environment and
natural resources.
Please oppose Norton as Secretary of the Interior.
Sincerely,
Peter J. MacManus.
______
Raleigh, NC, January 12, 2001.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing to you because I oppose Gale
Norton as Secretary of the Interior. I have seen the record of some of
her actions, and I definitely do not believe that she is the right
person to entrust with decisions about this country's natural
resources.
Please, Senator Murkowski, do what you can to defeat Gale Norton.
Sincerely,
Sarah A. MacManus.
______
Durham, NC, January 12, 2001.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing to voice my opposition to the
nomination of Gale Norton as the Secretary of the Interior. As a
follower of James Watt and through her actions it is painfully obvious
that her belief is that public lands are to be exploited by large
companies and not to be enjoyed by the public for the beauty and
environmental integrity that they hold.
Gale Norton has shown through the years that she supports
legislation where companies have the right to hide environmental
violations if they say they will do better. In other words she does not
believe that there should be any consequence for negatively affecting
the air, water, and land that we need to survive. This also means that
she does not believe that companies should be punished for defacing our
public lands.
The National Park Service and BLM are already weak due to budget
cuts, the last thing that the nation needs is Gale Norton as Secretary
of the Interior. Our national treasures that are already stressed will
be under attack from large corporations wanting to extract all the
resources they can. The question comes down to, are our public lands
set aside for us the people or for big corporations. Gale Norton
supports the corporations and I urge you to oppose her nomination
Senator Murkowski.
Thank you for your time.
Chris Shepard.
______
Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, AK, January 12, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The leadership of the Alaska State Senate
and the Alaska State House of Representatives would like to express out
support for the nomination and appointment of Ms. Gale Norton to
Secretary of the Interior.
The Department of the Interior appointment is extremely important
to our state. Most of our lands and much of our natural resources are
intricately tied to this agency. The mission of many of the Bureaus
within the Department, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of
Land Management, the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service are also interwoven in the daily lives of most of our citizens.
Thus, we do not treat the nomination of this important cabinet position
lightly.
Ms. Norton's resume is exemplary. She certainly understands the
many issues and challenges facing the western states and the country as
a whole, having served for two terms as Attorney General in Colorado.
In that capacity, she also demonstrated an ability to fairly interpret,
implement and enforce the federal and state laws which she was sworn to
uphold. Her previous experience with the Department of the Interior
gives her the background and technical expertise to tackle the tough
issues facing this Department.
We appreciate your considering our recommendation that Ms. Norton
be confirmed as Secretary of the Interior by the U.S. Senate.
Sincerely,
Rick Halford,
Senate President.
Brian Porter,
Speaker of the House.
______
Canyon Lake, TX, January 13, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Co-Chairs, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: The purpose of this letter is to register my protest
to the appointment of Gale Norton as Interior Secretary. The reason I
am taking time to do this, and asking you to take time to consider it,
is that I believe our natural resources are invaluable and
irreplaceable. That these qualities do not translate well to arguments
based on simple economics should not exempt them from concern, since
they transcend that arena; they provide an end for that which economics
only provides a means. For example, I don't work 40-50 hours per week
because I like to work, I do it because I have to accumulate a
financial cushion in order to spend a few weeks each year in the
wilderness. This philosophy was also expressed by former President
Theodore Roosevelt in saying that ``the nation behaves well when it
leaves its resources enhanced, and not depleted, for future
generations''.
Based on Ms. Norton's record, I do not believe the natural
resources of our nation would be enhanced under her stewardship. In
fact, there appears to be a greater likelihood that they would be
depleted for relatively short-term economic gain. Since many of these
resources are irreplaceable, the conservative approach would be to
protect them from exploitation.
Sincerely,
Jerry O'Connor.
______
America Outdoors,
Knoxville, TN, January 15, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Interior Secretary Nominee Gale Norton
Dear Chairman Bingaman: On behalf of America Outdoors, I
respectfully request that you, as Chairman of the Confirming Committee,
support Ms. Gale Norton's nomination for Secretary of the Interior and
act quickly to assure her confirmation.
As the Interior Department's Associate Solicitor from 1985 to 1987,
Ms. Norton was exposed to the intricacies of the Department as well as
the nuances of national policymaking. She is familiar with the
Department, its issues, and its management and is adept at natural
resource administration. America Outdoors strongly supports
confirmation of Ms. Norton for Secretary of the Interior.
Sincerely,
David Brown,
Executive Director.
______
Asheville, NC, January 16, 2001.
Senator Murkowski: I am writing to oppose Gale Norton as Interior
Secretary. As a new mother who dreams of her son growing up in a world
that protects and preserves its natural resources, I appeal to you to
do all you can to keep Norton from being appointed for the following
reasons:
Norton's audacious stance to open protected wildlands to
oil, gas, mining, and logging industries is terrifying; we
chose to protect these lands for a reason. The United States
wisely recognized that environmental diversity is essential to
the longevity of the human race. Norton's unconcern for this
diversity is dangerous and disconcerting.
As an attorney, Norton sued the EPA to overturn clean-air
standards. With the pollution problems this nation is already
facing, we need government representatives to protect its
citizens' best interests--air is a very basic best interest of
all of us.
Norton generally protects interests of industry over the
environment. There must be a balance! What good is a healthy
industry if it has no world in which to do business?
When I was pregnant, I spent many sleepless nights worrying about
the state of the world to which I was preparing to introduce my son.
Please protect his future. Please hear the plea of a woman who, despite
the worries, has enough hope in our future to bring a son into it.
Sincerely,
Gwyn Ridenhour.
______
Association of California Water Agencies,
Sacramento, CA, January 16, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: On behalf of the Association of California
Water Agencies (ACWA) and its members, I am writing to strongly support
the nomination of the Honorable Gale A. Norton to be the next Secretary
of the United States Department of the Interior.
We believe Ms. Norton's extensive experience in a broad array of
western water and resource issues uniquely qualifies her to be the
Secretary of the Interior. She has shown herself to be not only
knowledgeable about the law and good public policy, but has proven to
be receptive to all points of view and fair minded in her approach.
We believe she is the kind of individual who can work with a wide
variety of interests to fashion policies that will address the water
and other resource issues in California and throughout the West. We
pledge to work with her, the rest of the Bush administration and
Congress should she be confirmed.
We urge the committee to give its unanimous endorsement of Ms.
Norton as the next Secretary of the Interior.
Sincerely,
Stephen K. Hall,
Executive Director.
______
Parker, CO, January 16, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Murkowski: I am writing you to support the nomination of
Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior, Ms. Norton served eight
years as Colorado's Attorney General and three years as an Associate
solicitor within the Department of the Interior.
Ms. Norton has shown her expertise as a legal advocate regarding
environmental matters in this state.
As the exploration manager for a mining company, I understand the
need for even-handed environmental activism in this country. I believe
Ms. Norton can establish the working bipartisan consensus needed to
effectively enforce the laws that rule public land use.
Yours truly,
Warren R. Bates.
______
The Colorado Mining Association,
Denver, CO, January 16, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: On behalf of the Colorado Mining
Association (CMA) and its more than 600 members, I am writing to
support the nomination of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior.
Ms. Norton served eight years as Colorado's Attorney General and three
years as an Associate Solicitor within the Department of the Interior.
Given her extensive experience with land use and environmental issues,
it is clear that Ms. Norton is one of the most highly qualified
candidates for the Interior Secretary position in the entire history of
the Department.
The CMA is an industry organization, founded in 1876 and
incorporated in 1897, whose more than 600 members include individuals
and organizations engaged in the exploration, development and
production coal, metals, agricultural and industrial minerals
throughout Colorado and the west. Our members also include individuals
and organizations who provide services and supplies to the industry, as
well as state, local, and federal governmental officials interested in
mining.
During her tenure as Colorado's Attorney General, Ms. Norton was an
effective legal advocate for environmental interests and was dedicated
to the enforcement of the state's environmental laws. She was
particularly effective in implementing and enforcing laws related to
the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. She possesses a broad
understanding of the workings of government and is able to build the
bipartisan consensus needed to administer and enforce the laws that
govern the nation's public lands.
I urge you to vote for her confirmation as Secretary of the
Interior.
Sincerely,
Stuart A. Sanderson,
President.
______
Viejas Tribal Government,
Alpine, CA, January 16, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: As Chairman of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay
Indians, I would like to take this opportunity to commend President-
elect Bush on his selection of Gale A. Norton to be Secretary of the
Interior. As you and your fellow Senators commence your
constitutionally mandated ``advise and consent'' function, I am writing
to advise you of the Viejas Tribe's support for her nomination.
We recognize that tribal issues will be front-and-center in the
107th Congress and for the foreseeable future. Issues such as water
rights, education, health care, and of course, gaming will certainly be
discussed. We have confidence that, given her background and
experience, Secretary-designate Norton is well suited to address these
issues, and balance the competing interests they present.
As attorney general of Colorado, Ms. Norton earned a reputation as
being a fair arbiter of disputes involving tribal governments, and a
zealous advocate for tribes on issues ranging from water rights to the
National Tobacco Settlement (``NTS'').
The latter issue is of utmost interest to us, as her actions
provided a window on her views of tribal self-governance. As a leader
for the National Association of Attorneys General, Norton faced the
question of how settlement moneys should be paid out to tribal
governments. Some advocated for turning these funds over to federal
bureaucrats, so that they could be parceled out on an as-needed basis.
To her credit, then General Norton opposed that idea based on the
concept of tribal sovereignty. She recognized that NTS funds would be
paid to states in lump sum for them to use in their discretion, and she
advocated that tribal governments be treated the same way. In essence,
she viewed tribes and states as co-equal sovereigns.
In addition, Ms. Norton had the sensitivity to recognize that
religious uses of tobacco by tribal members should receive special
consideration outside the scope of new tobacco regulation or
legislation.
It is rare that friends will agree with each other one hundred
percent of the time, and we have no expectations that she would be any
different. We recognize that Ms. Norton has not always sided with
tribal governments in the past, and that she may not always side with
tribal governments in the future. Thus, we reserve the ``right to
petition the government to redress our grievances,'' even if she
chooses to oppose some of our positions.
However, on the broader issue of tribal sovereignty and self-
governance, Ms. Norton appears to share our views. Thus, based on her
past positions and comments, the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians can
offer its full endorsement of her candidacy to become the next
Secretary of the Interior.
Very truly yours,
Steven F. TeSam,
Chairman, Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians.
______
State of Nevada,
January 16, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chair, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Hart Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to apprise the Committee of my
professional experience with Secretary-Designate Gale Norton. I served
as Deputy Director and Interim Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service from 1986 to 1989.
During these years, Ms. Norton was assigned as Associate Solicitor
for my agency and we dealt with some of the most contentious issues of
the time. As a careerist, I can attest that Gale gave professional
counsel of the highest caliber. She never interjected partisanship or
evidence of a political agenda. Indeed, while others in the Department
may have suggested otherwise, she repeatedly interpreted the law, gave
solid advice and defended those of us making the final decisions.
One specific action seems most exemplary of Gale's integrity. The
potential listing under the Endangered Species Act for the Desert
Tortoise was one of the most controversial facing the newly installed
Bush Administration in 1989. Secretary Lujan was new to the agency and
the provisions of the Act. As Interim Director for the Fish and
Wildlife Service, I had to decide a listing that would have great
impact on my home State of Nevada, as well as other states. Gale Norton
was there to provide even-handed legal advice, tempered with common
sense personal advice. Essentially, Gale said, ``do what's right under
the law''. We did; the tortoise was listed; the species has improved;
growth has been accommodated and Nevada is the fastest growing state in
the nation.
For me, it is ludicrous to hear of this judicious, moderate woman
described as extreme or radical. The Interior Department I served for
17 years will gain a leader with thorough knowledge of the agency,
personal integrity and the ability to administer a large, diverse
bureaucracy. I urge to favorably consider Gale Norton for confirmation.
Sincerely,
Steve Robinson,
State Forester-Firewarden.
______
National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
Washington, DC, January 16, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for Confirmation of Gale Norton as Secretary of the
Interior
Dear Chairman Murkowski: The National Cattlemen's Beef Association
strongly supports the nomination of Gale Norton to be the next
Secretary of the Interior. Ms. Norton is an excellent candidate with a
solid track record of working with diverse interests to find workable
solutions to complex natural resource management issues. She believes
that conservation and multiple use can be cooperatively employed to
bring sustainability back to federal land management without
sacrificing environmental protection or the loss of viable economic
resource development.
Gale Norton is an advocate of state supremacy and private property
rights. She has strong beliefs on how capitalism and other economic
considerations can be used to enhance compliance with existing
environmental regulations. As the Attorney General for the State of
Colorado, she has proven herself to be a strong supporter of
environmental protection by addressing numerous issues related to
industrial polluters. She has worked effectively in partnerships with
other states and many other organizations to develop solutions to
complex legal and environmental issues. Ms. Norton has consistently
worked to ensure that all interests have a voice in the development of
management plans or other decisions.
Gale Norton is extremely well qualified to be the next Secretary of
the Interior. She will bring creativity and diverse legal experience to
the Department. Her leadership will enhance the work of the
professional staff at the agency, and be a great influence in
developing new ways to apply the principles of multiple use,
conservation, and sustainability. Gale Norton is a natural leader. She
has a strong desire to achieve consensus results. She will ensure the
department holds an open invitation to many different interests to sit
at the table. Ms. Norton will be a positive influence on the
development of new public policies at the Department of the Interior,
and many people will benefit from her tenure as Secretary.
Please join us in supporting Gale Norton's confirmation as the next
Secretary of the Interior.
Sincerely,
George Hall,
President.
______
Northern California Water Association,
January 16, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing today to convey the Northern
California Water Agencies' (NCWA) support for the nomination of Gale
Norton to the position of Secretary of the United States Department of
the Interior.
NCWA represents 70 water suppliers and individual farmers who
collectively irrigate over 850,000 acres of fertile Northern California
farmland. Several of our members also deliver water to state and
federal wildlife refuges and a large portion of this land serves as
important seasonal wetlands for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds and
other wildlife.
Ms. Norton has an extensive background in resource management,
including a prior appointment in the Interior Department. During this
service, Ms. Norton has shown a strong desire to foster partnerships
between the federal and state governments and local interests. We
believe that these local partnerships are the key to successful water
management in California.
Once again, I would like to express NCWA's support for Ms. Norton's
nomination.
Sincerely,
David J. Guy,
Executive Director.
______
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians,
Highland, CA, January 16, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing, on behalf of the San Manuel
Band of Mission Indians, to express our support for the nomination of
Gale A. Norton to become Secretary of the Interior. We commend
President-elect Bush on his selection of a candidate who has shown an
appreciation for the constitutional government-to-government
relationship between Indian nations and the United States.
As you are very aware, the issues affecting our Indian nations have
no easy solutions. Issues such as water rights, education, health care,
and of course, gaming will certainly continue to be hot topics of
discussion during the 107th Congress. Based on her background and
experience we believe that Secretary-designate Norton will seek
creative, practical solutions to these issues, while balancing those
legitimate interests potentially affected.
As Attorney General of Colorado, Ms. Norton dealt with several such
issues involving tribal governments, including water rights and gaming
compacts, and earned a reputation as a fair negotiator. However, it is
Ms. Norton's actions during the National Tobacco Settlement, which
indicate that she respects the sovereign status of Indian tribes. As a
leader of the National Association of Attorneys General on this issue,
Ms. Norton faced the question of how to distribute the settlement funds
to tribal governments. While some advocated distributing these funds to
federal agencies to be dispensed to tribes as needed, Ms. Norton
opposed that idea based on tribal sovereignty. She advocated that
tribal governments be treated in the same manner as states, which would
be receiving settlement funds in a lump sum to be used in their
discretion.
Additionally, we appreciate Ms. Norton's recognition of the
traditional uses of tobacco in ceremonies by tribal members, and her
advocacy of special consideration for such uses outside the scope of
new tobacco regulation or legislation.
While we applaud Ms. Norton's efforts, we recognize that she has
not always agreed with the views of tribal governments and that she may
not agree with our views in the future. However, we have confidence
that those disagreements will be handled through open, constructive
dialogue in a manner befitting our government-to-government
relationship. Based on her past comments and actions, Ms. Norton
appears to share our position on tribal sovereignty and self-
governance, while also having respect for the culture and traditions of
our people. Therefore, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians offers
its full endorsement of her nomination to become the next Secretary of
the Interior.
Very truly yours,
Deron Marquez,
Tribal Chairman.
______
Kern County Water Agency,
Bakersfield, CA, January 17, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for Secretary of the Interior Nominee Gale Norton
Dear Senator Murkowski: We are writing to express our strong
support for the confirmation of Ms. Gale Norton as Secretary of the
Interior. Our agency is a local governmental entity in the State of
California which has experience with successful cooperative efforts of
the federal government with state and local governments.
Through our nationwide contacts with other state and local
governments involved in water supply, we know of the open and fair-
minded approach to policy that Ms. Norton brings. Creative solutions
are needed to provide for the water and power needs of Americans in an
environmentally sound way. We believe Ms. Norton has the experience and
intellect to forge such solutions to our most pressing problems.
President-elect Bush has made an outstanding selection for Interior
Secretary by presenting Ms. Norton. We urge the Committee to give its
unanimous and expeditious endorsement of Ms. Norton as the next
Secretary of the Interior.
Very truly yours,
Thomas N. Clark,
General Manager.
______
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Office of Attorney General,
Harrisburg, PA, January 17, 2001.
Hon. Rick Santorum,
U.S. Senate, Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Gale Norton
Dear Senator Santorum: I am writing to you at this time to
enthusiastically endorse Gale Norton who has been nominated to serve as
Secretary of the Interior.
Gale served as the Attorney General of Colorado from 1990 until
1998. Gale and I worked on a number of projects together; most
significantly, we were part of the Multi-State Tobacco Negotiating
Team. During those negotiations, I had the chance to work with Gale for
a period of close to five months, and I learned to admire her energy,
her commitment and most of all her ability as a very able attorney. In
addition, I also learned what a fine person Gale Norton is.
Gale worked for more than 20 years in a balanced way on
environmental and federal land issues, including during her eight years
as Colorado Attorney General. She played a key role in at least a dozen
environmental clean-up projects, including leading efforts to ensure
that the federal government cleaned its hazardous waste at the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal. She served as Associate Solicitor of the U.S.
Department of the Interior and as chair of the Environmental Committee
of NAAG.
I believe Gale Norton is an outstanding person whose experience,
qualifications and intellect will enable her to do an outstanding job
as the Secretary of the Interior. Thank you for your consideration and
support of Gale Norton's nomination.
Very truly yours,
D. Michael Fisher,
Attorney General.
______
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, January 17, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Murkowski: In the coming days the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources will be holding a confirmation hearing on the
nomination of Gale Norton for the position of Secretary of the Interior
in the Bush Administration.
We are asking that when Ms. Norton testifies before your committee
you include questions about her responsibilities with respect to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
Specifically, we hope you ensure the Secretary-designate
understands the BIA is an increasingly important area of her
jurisdiction, as well as the effects federal recognition has on both
tribes and their surrounding communities.
Recently, concerns have been raised by state and local officials
across the country about the manner in which the BIA is granting
recognition. In addition, the rapid growth in casino-style gaming on
Indian reservations has led to a surge in campaign contributions and
the potential that non-native groups will be erroneously recognized.
We believe federal recognition should adhere to the existing, well-
established criteria and the process should be fair, open and free from
political pressure. This transparency is especially important in the
era of Indian gaming.
Our nation has a responsibility to uphold certain unbreakable
obligations to the continent's native peoples, and groups meeting the
established and objective criteria should receive federal recognition
and its attendant benefits. However, because granting federal
recognition means creating sovereign nations and because federally-
recognized tribes are eligible to automatically receive benefits and,
in many instances, are permitted to establish gaming operations,
acknowledgment should follow a well-defined, non-political process.
We hope you share our concerns and appreciate your attention to
this matter.
Sincerely,
Christopher Shays, Member of Congress; Frank Wolf,
Member of Congress; Rob Simmons, Member of
Congress; Rosa DeLauro, Member of Congress;
James Maloney, Member of Congress.
______
American Recreation Coalition,
Washington, DC, January 17, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The American Recreation Coalition is pleased to
submit its views on the confirmation of Gale Norton to serve as
Secretary of the Interior. We ask that our views be included in the
record of the hearings on this nomination and shared with members of
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Like many on your own committee, we reserve final judgment on Ms.
Norton's confirmation until we are able to observe the results of the
hearing scheduled for tomorrow. However, we are strongly inclined to
support this nomination for several reasons.
First, Ms. Norton has an excellent grasp of the issues facing the
Department of the Interior from her previous work at the department and
from her work as Colorado's Attorney General. The post of Secretary of
the Interior is one of the most important federal posts for the
recreation community and we believe that having an individual with
issue awareness in that position is vital to moving promptly on key
issues, ranging from addressing large capital investment needs for
visitor services and resource protection to water management.
Second, Ms. Norton has shown a clear passion for outdoor
recreation, a passion which links her with tens of millions of
Americans who understand the physical, mental and spiritual benefits of
outdoor recreation. Federally-managed lands provide nearly two billion
recreation experiences annually and are vital to meeting national needs
for recreation opportunities. We believe that her personal views on the
importance of recreation to improving the health of individuals,
families and communities will be reflected in her policy decisions.
Third, we note that Ms. Norton was part of the elected leadership
of Colorado, a state with high recreation/public lands and waters
connections, during an era of important recreation and conservation
gains. During her tenure as Attorney General, the state approved and
implemented Great Outdoors Colorado, an effort which dramatically
boosted efforts to preserve open spaces in and near urban portions of
the state. Moreover, the state embarked on efforts to strengthen
cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation to supply residents with water-linked recreation, ranging
from swimming, fishing and boating at reservoirs near Denver to
whitewater sports on rivers throughout the state. Recreation community
leaders in the state regard Ms. Norton as a contributor to this
progress, as one open to new ideas and diverse views and as a strong
advocate for problem-solving through consensus. We further note that
she worked closely with leaders of both parties within the state, a
pattern we strongly support at the national level.
We are interested in a better understanding of Ms. Norton's
commitment to campaign commitments by President-elect Bush on meeting
the funding needs of our parks and other federal recreation sites and
on pursuing full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That
fund has long been a valuable tool in protecting the Great Outdoors.
However, the lack of funding for the Fund's state side has jeopardized
open space protection and recreation facility development near
America's population centers. We are delighted by Mr. Bush's support
and look forward to Ms. Norton's elaboration on Administration plans
and encourage you to pursue these topics at tomorrow's hearing. We also
urge you to secure Ms. Norton's support for addressing funding needs
for other federal land management agencies, including the Bureau of
Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of
Reclamation.
We thank you for considering our views and for timely action on
this nomination.
Sincerely,
Derrick A. Crandall,
President.
______
Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers' Association,
San Angelo, TX, January 17, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the 2,000+ members of the Texas
Sheep & Goat Raisers' Association, I want to express our support for
Gale Norton for the position of Interior Secretary. Mrs. Norton is
extremely well-qualified for this job and is highly regarded by
livestock producers and small landowners for standing tall on private
property rights issues.
Those who make their living from the land understand what it takes
to be a good steward. Gale Norton understands that, too. She is a
strong supporter of state's rights, property rights and local control.
In addition to serving as Associate Solicitor for the Department of the
Interior from 1985-87, she was the first woman ever elected as Attorney
General for the state of Colorado. Her work with the Mountain State
Legal Foundation was admirable.
We feel Gale Norton would be an great asset to the Bush
Administration and are pleased that President-Elect Bush saw fit to
nominate her for this important job. We urge that you give her every
possible consideration, as we feel she knows how to get things done and
would do an excellent job if approved.
Sincerely,
Sandra Whittley,
Executive Secretary.
______
Republican Attorneys General Association,
Washington, DC, January 18, 2001.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senate Dirksen Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Members: On
behalf of the Republican Attorneys General Association, we recommend
the approval of Attorney General Gale Norton's nomination to be the
Secretary of the Interior.
General Norton has worked for more than 20 years in a balanced way
on environmental and federal land issues. She has played key roles in
at least a dozen environmental clean-up projects, including leading
efforts to ensure that the federal government cleaned up its hazardous
wastes at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. She has served as the Associate
Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior and as Chair of the
Environmental Committee for the National Association of Attorneys
General.
General Norton has earned high praise from all quarters for her
work. She has the experience, qualifications and intellect to be an
outstanding Secretary of the Interior. These reasons are the
determining factors in the RAGA supporting her nomination.
Sincerely,
Jane Brady,
Chair, Attorney General of Delaware.
______
Colorado Campground and Lodging Owners' Association,
Denver, CO, January 18, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The Colorado Campground and Lodging Owners'
Association represents campground and lodging owners in the state of
Colorado. Our members are primarily small, family-owned businesses
located throughout the state.
Tourism plays a major role in the Colorado economy. It totals 8% of
all jobs. In 1997, tourism accounted for between 12-15% of basic jobs,
bringing outside dollars into the state. Tourism is second only to
manufacturing in the number of basic jobs in Colorado.
Because tourism in Colorado relies on use of public land and
private enterprises, it is vital that the person serving as Secretary
of the Interior understand that the public lands in Colorado must be
managed in a way that is compatible with the private tourism industry.
Both public and private sectors must be able to work together.
Our organization urges support for Gale Norton for Secretary of the
Interior. We believe she will be a leader in establishing guidelines
for mixed-use of public lands that will protect this important
environmental resource while ensuring the health of the tourism
industry in our state. Additionally, her knowledge of the state
enhances her understanding of the issues and makes her appointment even
more important for the Colorado tourism industry.
Thank you,
Sally Harms,
Executive Director.
______
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA, January 18, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for Ms. Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing this letter to express the
support of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) for Ms. Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior.
Metropolitan provides supplemental water supplies to 17 million
citizens in Southern California. Metropolitan has enjoyed a long-
standing positive relationship with the Department of the Interior in
the development of balanced policies that benefit both the economy and
the environment of California and the western states. We believe that
Ms. Norton will continue in that tradition, promoting the recovery of
the nation's environment and protecting and enhancing the economies of
the western states.
Metropolitan urges the Senate to approve the appointment of Ms.
Gale Norton as the next Secretary of the Interior.
Very truly yours,
Ronald R. Gastelum,
General Manager.
______
Society for Range Management,
Lakewood, CO, January 18, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing to express my support for the
nomination of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Department of the
Interior.
While I am not personally acquainted with Ms. Norton, I have spent
considerable time learning of her background and performance both in
government service and in the private sector. Her record represents one
of balance and care in collecting and examining background information
critical to decision making. She has demonstrated sensitivity to both
environmental and human needs, realizing that with application of sound
science, much can be achieved to deliver resources without sacrificing
environmental values.
Over the past 34 years, I have personally consulted on behalf of
units of government, environmental organizations, industry, and private
sector clients regarding public lands resources throughout the west.
The demands for multiple values increase exponentially as populations
grow and discover the public lands. Delivery of multiple values can
only occur under the charge of a competent and skilled administrator.
Gale Norton is eminently qualified for Secretary of the U.S.
Department of the Interior. She brings a broad base of experience in
most of the natural resources managed by the Department, and in many of
the more controversial issues confronting the Department.
She has accumulated her breadth and depth of experience by virtue
of her work experience as a Senior Attorney for the Mountain States
Legal Foundation, as Assistant Solicitor of the Department, as
Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, two terms as Colorado
Attorney General, and most recently as Senior Counsel at the Colorado
Law Firm, Brownstein, Hyatt & Farber, P.C.
One of the more pressing issues facing our nation and the
Department is energy as highlighted by the current California
electrical energy crisis. The Department is urgently in need of bold
and innovative policies to encourage creative development of
alternative energy sources which utilize public resources in an
environmentally safe and sustainable manner. Two examples that come to
mind are biomass from public lands vegetation such as pinion-juniper,
and wind. Gale is well equipped to lead the Department into this new
era to encourage creative developmental activities in an
environmentally sensitive manner.
This is but one example of how the experience and values Gale would
bring to the Department make her ideally suited for the post. I urge
your thoughtful examination of her credentials. After you have the
benefit of the dialogue generated in her nomination hearing, I hope you
will support her nomination.
Thank you for your attention to this matter so vital to the
nation's natural resources.
Sincerely,
John L. McLain,
President.
______
Office of the Governor, Guam,
January 18, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in support of the nomination of the
Honorable Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior. The people of Guam
look forward to Ms. Norton's leadership of the executive department
that has direct responsibility for insular affairs. I am confident that
as Secretary of the Interior, Ms. Norton will continue progress on the
issues of great importance to Guam and that she will be instrumental in
resolving the land issues that have been at the forefront of the Guam-
United States relationship in the past few years.
Ms. Norton has substantial experience in the Department of the
Interior, having previously served in the Solicitor's Office. We
believe that she has the necessary familiarity with territorial issues
to be an effective Secretary and that she brings a broad understanding
of the unique federal land issues on Guam to her office.
Guam has had a contentious relationship with the Department of the
Interior in large measure due to the Fish and Wildlife Service's
acquisition of 370 acres of excess military lands in 1993 for a
wildlife refuge. The 370 acres at Ritidian have become the focal point
for Guam's dissatisfaction with federal land policy on our island. Due
to the historical context of the military's acquisition of over one-
third of Guam's lands after World War II for national security
purposes, the Interior action has been harmful to the good relationship
between the people of Guam and the United States. We hold the federal
government to its commitment that military lands no longer needed for
defense purposes should be returned to the people of Guam.
In an effort to resolve these issues, I have been engaged in
discussions for the past year with the previous Secretary and his staff
on possible solutions that would enhance the level of environmental
protection on Guam while addressing the issue of Interior's acquisition
of Ritidian. I was willing to make the necessary compromises that would
restore the good relationship between the U.S. and Guam and that would
meet the needs of the Interior Department and the Government of Guam.
Regretfully, the Fish and Wildlife Service was not.
We believe that Ms. Norton will restore a balance to federal land
policy on Guam that has been missing since 1993. There is now an
imbalance where the bureaucrats at the Fish and Wildlife Service make
policy without adequate regard for local concerns. Environmental policy
should not be a zero sum game where the Fish and Wildlife Service wins
and the people of Guam lose. Environmental policy should be
collaborative process with respect for, and accommodation of, local
needs. On Guam, the respect we seek would recognize the patriotism of
the people of Guam and our support for the national security interest,
even when the national interest requires the use of one-third of our
island for military bases. And the accommodation we seek would balance
environmental policy with the federal commitment to return excess
military lands to our people. We believe that Ms. Norton appreciates
our history and our culture, and that she will be fair in dealing with
us on these land issues.
We are also encouraged by Ms. Norton's commitment to the devolution
of federal power where local governments are more appropriate to
formulating public policy in response to local needs. This is a bedrock
principle of self-government that Guam supports and encourages. We are
confident that Ms. Norton will appoint policy makers and senior staff
at the Department of the Interior that will reflect this view. Any
increase in local self-governance in the territories is welcome and
long overdue. We find Ms. Norton's views on limiting the role of the
federal government in our lives both refreshing and promising for the
resolution of the Guam's political status issues.
Thank you for considering my support of Ms. Gale Norton as
Secretary of the Interior. I hope that the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources votes to recommend Ms. Norton to the full Senate
and that she is confirmed quickly. We look forward to her new
leadership and her initiatives for the territories.
Sincerely,
Carl T.C. Gutierrez,
Governor.
______
California Teachers Association,
Burlingame, CA, January 19, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing to urge you to vote not to
confirm Gale Norton as interior secretary in the George W. Bush
Administration. The Board of Directors of the 300,000-member California
Teachers Association voted to oppose the confirmation of Ms. Norton at
its January 17 meeting.
We believe that every student and teacher deserve a school that is
safe and healthy. Ms. Norton's record of working for and pandering to
``big polluters'' puts the health of our children at risk. Ms. Norton
is currently a registered lobbyist for a Texas company that is
responsible for dozens of cases concerning children's exposure to lead
paint. As Colorado's Attorney General, Ms. Norton advocated that
businesses may in fact have a ``right to pollute.'' This is in direct
conflict to the agency she is being asked to lead.
In addition, as Attorney General Ms. Norton went out of her way to
stop programs that provided college scholarships to ethnic students to
promote diversity on state university campuses. She also refused to
defend Colorado's law to increase diversity in state construction
projects. We believe that all children deserve the right to learn and
that our schools and communities are made stronger by embracing our
diversity. In both these instances Ms. Norton put her personal beliefs
before the laws of Colorado. How can we assume she will act differently
as U.S. Interior Secretary?
As educators we teach children the importance of protecting and
preserving our national resources and national parks. This is a lesson
Ms. Norton apparently needs to repeat. Her extreme views are out of
touch with American voters. We do not believe the best interests of our
children and future generations will be served by the confirmation of
Ms. Norton as interior secretary.
Sincerely,
Wayne Johnson,
President.
______
United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc.,
Nashville, TN, January 19, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Murkowski: As President of the United South and
Eastern Tribes, I am writing to express support for Gate Norton to be
the next Secretary of the Interior. USET is an organization made up of
24 Federally recognized tribes that extend from the State of Maine to
the tip of Florida and over to Texas.
In my role as President of USET, I have not had first hand
experience with Secretary-designate Norton, however, I am encouraged
that she has worked with Indian nations on a government-to-government
basis during her tenure as the Attorney General of the State of
Colorado. As attorney general, Ms. Norton repeatedly demonstrated
respect for tribal sovereignty. For example, in the wake of Colorado's
settlement with the tobacco industry, Ms. Norton worked to ensure that
the tribal share of the proceeds went directly to tribal governments
rather than be administered through state agencies.
As Secretary of the Interior, Ms. Norton would preside over the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and help set the agenda for issues that are of
vital importance to Native Americans. These issues, which include
health care, education, sovereignty, economic development, gaming, and
taxation, have been increasingly the subjects of debate in Congress.
Consequently, we believe that it is imperative that the next Secretary
of the Interior respect the role of tribal sovereignty, affirm a
government-to-government relationship between the federal government
and Indian nations, and provide the tools tribes need to further the
goal of tribal self-advancement and economic self-sufficiency.
Because of Ms. Norton's background and record on issues relating to
Native Americans, I offer my endorsement of her nomination to become
the next Secretary of the Interior.
Sincerely,
Keller George,
President.
______
Brookline, MA, January 20, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing to ask you to oppose the
appointment of Gale A. Norton as Secretary of the United States
Department of the Interior.
While I realize that you are a supporter of opening up the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and are therefore unlikely to
oppose this appointment, I would appreciate your consideration of some
of the other factors that concern me and millions of other ordinary men
and women across the country about this appointee.
I strongly believe that the role of the Department of the Interior
is to be the steward of our natural resources. In a world where we are
actually bumping up against the physical limitations of our natural
environment, there can be no greater task than managing our resources
so that they are there for the generations that will follow us.
Competent stewardship of natural resources has always been a
challenge facing human civilizations. Nonetheless, the most successful
societies, the ones that manage to last longer than a few hundred
years, are those that have learned to adapt their lifestyles to these
limits. In the United States, our history of ample open space, and the
priority we place on individual rights, presents a unique challenge to
our ability to plan for the long term and act in the interests of the
whole nation rather than just a few individuals.
I am deeply concerned that Gale Norton's record and belief system
will not enable her to be a true steward of our shared resources. I am
not just talking about our national parks, but about the air and water
that flow across the land and are used and needed by everybody. Please
look beyond this generation's interests and realize that while another
oil boom may be good for the wallets of the residents of Alaska and the
owners of the oil companies, continuing to rely on fossil fuels will
negatively impact our children and grandchildren in ways that we can
barely imagine.
Allowing companies to monitor themselves when it comes to pollution
simply does not work. Slackening air pollution standards on trucks and
diesel vehicles is the wrong direction to be moving in at this point in
our history. The ozone hole is real and is already causing great
destruction. Global warming is real and is caused by human activity,
and the asthma attacks that I suffer when a truck driver thoughtlessly
leaves his truck idling as I walk down the street is very real. The
economic costs of ignoring these issues or addressing them with less
than 100% of our American ingenuity will far outstrip the costs to
business of becoming true partners in the stewardship of our natural
resources.
Finally, please remember that environmental issues are ones that a
key voting bloc, mothers, care about very deeply. Political leader have
underestimated the strength and passion of the ``soccer mom'' vote
before. The next true leader in our country will be the one who
realizes that Americans want to be asked by their leadership to join in
and sacrifice for the good of our country, even if it means not driving
an S.U.V.
Once again, please consider opposing the appointment of Gale Norton
as Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
Sincerely,
Victoria Grafflin.
______
Rural Public Lands County Council,
Washington, DC, January 22, 2001.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: As Chairman of the Rural Public Lands
County Council, a group of rural counties in Utah and Washington, I am
writing to urge your support of Gale Norton as Secretary of the
Interior.
The RPLCC is most concerned with solving problems on our public
lands. We believe that we have carried the rhetoric, and the war it has
created, too far. It is time for some real solutions. This will require
collaboration and concensus building.
Gale Norton would be ideal in this setting. She has a proven record
of dealing sensibly with tough issues. She is a dedicated collaborator.
She is what the Interior needs at this time.
We are confident that Gale will bring stability and healing to a
long embattled department, and we strongly urge you to vote for her
confirmation.
Respectfully,
Randy G. Johnson,
Chairman.
______
American Farm Bureau Federation,
Park Ridge, IL, January 22, 2001.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senate Dirksen
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The American Farm Bureau Federation, the
nation's largest general agricultural organization, endorses the
nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary of the Interior.
Ms. Norton's experience as a leader looking for a more
collaborative approach to resource management is a most welcome
development for our members. Rural communities are often seriously
affected when conflicts arise over such issues as the Endangered
Species Act, wildlife protection and management of federal lands. Ms.
Norton has a proven track record, showing a willingness to listen to
the concerns of all sides of these issues. We believe this approach
will do much for rural communities, farmers and ranchers and the
environment.
The agriculture community is anxious to be part of the solution to
environmental problems. Gale Norton could bring that hope closer to
reality.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
______
Wasatch County,
Board of County Commissioners,
Heber City, UT, January 22, 2001.
Senator Frank Murkowski,
Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: We, as the County Commissioners of Wasatch
County, would like to give our endorsement and support in the
appointment of Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior.
We feel she will do an excellent job and will be a great asset to
our government.
Sincerely,
T. LaRen Provost,
Chair.
Ralph L. Duke.
Michael L. Kohler.
______
Washington County Commission,
St. George, UT, January 22, 2001.
Senator Frank Murkowski,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: This is to inform you that Washington
County, Utah, is strongly supportive of Gale Norton to be confirmed as
Secretary of the Interior. Her past history shows that she is a strong
consensus builder and a person who is committed to enforcing the law.
We are also pleased with her commitment to work with local governments
before formulating policy. We believe that she will be an excellent
person to direct the protection and proper development of our natural
resources within this country, as her previous record indicates. She
has a proven track record on everything from wilderness to water
negotiation as well as many other complex and tough issues, and has
been nationally recognized as a leader on environmental and natural
resource issues.
For these reasons, we encourage you to support the endorsement of
Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior.
Sincerely,
Gayle M. Aldred.
Alan D. Gardner.
James J. Eardley.
______
Silver Spring, MD.
Senator Frank Murkowski,
Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I strongly oppose the confirmation of Gale
Norton as Interior Secretary.
Norton's extremely poor environmental record makes it clear that
she would be the absolute wrong person for the job. She has shown that
she is unwilling to defend the public's interests against industry
interests, by advocating a ``right to pollute.'' Beyond the fact that
she has been pushing for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
for drilling, which I also oppose, she was a protege of former Interior
Secretary James Watt and adheres to his philosophies--this is
unacceptable.
In addition, I am personally appalled at the views she expressed in
her 1996 speech which demonstrated racial insensitivity and a lack of
compassion for the disenfranchised.
I urge you to vote against Gale Norton's confirmation.
Sincerely,
Betsy Tao,
JD Candidate, 2002,
Georgetown Law Center.
______
Georgetown University Law Center, January 14, 2001.
Dear Senator Murkowski: I strongly oppose President-elect Bush's
nomination of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. I urge you to
lead the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in not confirming
Ms. Norton. Although my personal views lean away from the general
conservative thoughts that the Republicans have regarding the
environment, being an extremist of any type would not satisfy the
moderate, centrist views which the American populous expressed in the
election. To confirm Ms. Norton, an extreme anti-environmentalist,
would be to further disenfranchise millions of Americans who fear that
their voices will not be heard.
Allowing polluters to ``regulate themselves'' and supporting
businesses' right to pollute is not what the Interior Secretary should
base her leadership on. I find her support of drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to be in direct conflict with her role as
Interior Secretary, which should be to ensure that the environment is
protected in light of ever-pressing big business and consumer energy
demand. Confirming Ms. Norton as Interior Secretary would be a big step
to ensuring that the future of our country and the environment is
sacrificed for short-term solutions and gains. Please vote against Gale
Norton for Secretary of the Interior.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Bowers,
Class of 2002.
______
Chapel Hill, NC.
Dear Senator: Gale Norton is an anti-environmental extremist whose
record as a lobbyist for polluters, an attorney for loggers and miners,
and a protege of James Watt makes her unfit to be Secretary of the
Interior. Gale Norton holds views associated with the far right-wing of
the ``wise use'' movement, including recognizing, as she put it, ``a
right to pollute . . .'' Gale Norton also favors allowing polluters to
regulate themselves, a practice the EPA has criticized.
In the last two years, Norton has been registered as a lobbyist for
NL Industries of Houston working on ``lead paint'' issues. And, she has
worked for a law firm that counts Delta Petroleum Corporation, Timet-
Titanium Metals Corporation, and other mining and petroleum companies
as clients. As an attorney, Norton sued the EPA to overturn Clean air
standards.
Due to her views and her record I strongly opposes the confirmation
of Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior.
Norton has long advocated opening America's wildlands to the oil,
gas, mining and logging industries. During the Reagan administration,
Norton served as associate solicitor at the Interior Department, where
she helped support efforts to drill the pristine Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge.
Before working for the Reagan administration, Norton was hired by
James Watt at the arch-conservative Mountain States Legal Foundation,
which often represents loggers, miners, ranchers and water developers
in fights against environmental safeguards. Watt was later ousted as
President Reagan's Interior Secretary for his extremist agenda.
Ms. Norton has consistently opposed congressional designation of
new wilderness areas in Colorado if designation protect the water
flowing through the wilderness. She would have Congress acknowledge the
unique rock formations, rich and diverse vegetation, and healthy
wildlife, then allow developers to drain the water, the very substance
that makes all those features possible. She opposed Colorado Wilderness
Act of 1993, and its earlier versions, because it included provisions
that recognized the need for water in wilderness, even though that
legal recognition did nothing to diminish any existing or future water
right.
These reasons and others too numerous to mention compel me to
request that oppose the nomination of Gale Norton to the position of
Secretary of the Interior.
Fredric R. Worrell.
______
San Francisco, CA.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Co-Chairs, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: The Department of the Interior (DOI)--encompassing
agencies such as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and the Bureau of Land Management--has the unique
responsibility of safeguarding America's few remaining and most
precious natural treasures and links to our shared natural and cultural
history. I strongly believe that those lands and waters, many of which
are priceless and irreplaceable, require the highest environmental
protection as mandated by federal statutes. The Department of the
Interior must be led by someone who recognizes this fact.
Gale Norton's career history working on land management issues
illustrates her apparent priorities in the area of natural resource
management. From this history, it appears that Ms. Norton believes that
``free market'' schemes can address many of the threats facing our
public lands. Unfortunately, our nation's history is littered with the
costly and damaging failures of similar market based land management
plans. Because I do not wish to see America's land management policies
hijacked for the short-term profit motives of exploitative industries,
I do not feel that Ms. Norton is the best-qualified candidate to act as
head steward of our nation's most valuable resources. Nothing in Ms.
Norton career history seems to suggest that she values natural
resources any more than they are worth at market-value.
Our nation's natural heritage is simply too precious to entrust to
anyone except a person with the utmost reverence for those resources.
Sadly, I am not convinced that Ms. Norton will make the protection of
our natural resources from needless destruction by extractive
industries as high a priority as necessary. Therefore, I call upon you
to oppose her nomination for Interior Secretary and lead/support a
filibuster of her nomination if it reaches the full Senate. Finally, I
call upon you to urge President Elect Bush to nominate a more suitable
candidate.
Sincerely,
Joseph Robinson.