[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 11 (Monday, January 29, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S617-S631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     NOMINATION OF GALE ANN NORTON TO BE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Byrd). Under the previous order, the hour 
of 2:04 having arrived, the Senate will now go into executive session 
and will proceed to the Norton nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Gale Ann Norton, of 
Colorado, to be Secretary of the Interior.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, is 
recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand there is to be 3 hours of 
debate on this nomination to be equally divided, and my request is that 
I be allowed such time as I may consume and to make it clear to my 
colleagues that I have no intention of coming close to the hour and a 
half that is allocated for our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair should state that under the previous 
order there will be 3 hours of debate equally divided between the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Under the previous order, there will now be 60 minutes to be equally 
divided

[[Page S618]]

between the two leaders, or their designees. The distinguished Senator 
from Utah is recognized during the period which is equally divided 
between the two leaders.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair for the clarification.
  Mr. President, when I decided that I would run for the Senate, I had 
been out of any active kind of political involvement for close to 18 
years.
  I left Washington in 1974, the same year Richard Nixon, the President 
in whose administration I served, left Washington. I remember being in 
a taxicab in Burbank, CA, on my way to an airport to come back to 
Washington to pick up my family when on the radio playing in the 
taxicab Mr. Nixon announced his resignation from the Presidency. At 
that time, I thought I would never return to anything connected with 
public life or politics and settled into a career as a businessman.

  But life has a way of changing things that we think are set in our 
lives. I found myself in 1991 contemplating a return to the political 
arena for the first time as a candidate for a serious office. I 
discovered in the 18-year hiatus since I had been gone that there were 
a number of issues I had not paid any attention to which were burning 
issues in the political arena of that time. One of them was clearly the 
question of the environment and the use of public lands.
  In Utah, we have a tremendous number of public lands. Indeed, two-
thirds of our State is owned by the Federal Government, and a large 
percentage of that which is owned by the State government is given over 
to State parks and other State land uses. One of the most inspiring of 
those State parks is known as Dead Horse Point. It is a place where you 
can go out and look over a huge vista way down below and, for reasons 
which I don't understand, is named after a dead horse.
  As you stand on that point--Dead Horse Point--you get a picture of 
the grandeur that is available in southeastern Utah. As I went down in 
that area to look for votes, I discovered that one of the biggest 
controversies there was the question of an oil well built in an area 
that could be seen from Dead Horse Point. I went down there absolutely 
determined that I would do whatever I could to see to it that there 
would be no oil exploration anywhere in an area that might despoil or 
damage the glorious views of Dead Horse Point.
  When I got there, I found that the local Republican leaders were 
involved in the oil well. Indeed, the woman, whom I had not met before, 
who took me around and introduced me into that area, said her husband 
worked on the oil well and outlined for me what it meant to their 
family economically if something were to happen to close oil wells. I 
thought, Well, here I am caught between the economic impact that is 
benefiting their family and other families and the aesthetic impact of 
seeing to it that things must be done properly as well as to protect 
the environment. What am I going to do about it? Then she said 
something that was very appropriate and, frankly, rare among 
politicians. She said: Why don't we go look at it? Why don't you see 
firsthand what this is all about? I said: Fine. That was a good way to 
delay the issue and not have to announce my position while I would let 
her take me out and show me where the oil well was.
  The gentleman who had driven me down into that part of the State and 
I got into her pickup truck and we went out looking for the oil well. I 
say ``looking'' because you couldn't find it. If you didn't have a 
guide who knew her way very well, you couldn't find the oil well. You 
couldn't see it.
  To further complicate things, on that particular day it was a little 
bit overcast and there was not necessarily fog but some confusion in 
the atmosphere making it difficult for us to get our bearings from 
surrounding mountains. She was a native of the area, knew it very well, 
but got lost nonetheless. We made a wrong turn. We wandered around. She 
tried to get her bearings and finally, retracing our steps, she took us 
to the place where there was the oil well. We got out of the truck and 
walked out into an area maybe twice the size of the Senate Chamber.
  It had been bermed up around the area, possibly by a bulldozer, but 
the result was that the oil well was in the bottom of what you might 
consider a very shallow basin. That is why you couldn't see it. It was 
not the great derrick we think of when we think of the movie ``Giant'' 
and Some of the other visual depictions of drilling for oil. It was 
what is called a Christmas tree, a series of valves that come together. 
I had my picture taken standing on it, and the Christmas tree was no 
higher than I could reach. I could put my hand out on the top of this 
and stand there. This was the total visual impact of this oil well. It 
was painted in such a way as to blend into the surrounding flora, and 
it was at the bottom of a shallow basin. If you were more than 100 feet 
away from it, you couldn't see it. I realized that the idea it could be 
seen from Dead Horse Point maybe was true if you had a very high-
powered set of binoculars and knew exactly where to look and maybe had 
some sort of laser device to help you aim, but that no one in the 
normal course of enjoying the outdoor experience of Dead Horse Point 
would ever see this oil well.
  I went away from the experience determined that I would support the 
oil well and the pumping of oil in that area to see to it that the 
people of that area would get some economic stability to their lives, 
knowing it could be done in an environmentally sensitive way that would 
see to it that visitors to Dead Horse Point would have no diminution of 
their outdoor experience in southeast Utah.
  I described this experience in this kind of detail for this reason: 
We are going to discuss the nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary 
of the Interior. The opposition to Gale Norton as Secretary of the 
Interior comes from those who insist that her attitude toward the wise 
use of our natural resources in this country is so inimical to the idea 
of wilderness, environmental enjoyment, and environmental protection 
that she must be defeated.
  I suggest we need to, as a nation, go through the same kind of 
experience that I as an individual went through when I was trying to 
make up my mind on which side of this divide I would come down. I 
discovered that you can, in fact, if you are willing to look at the 
facts, come down on both sides simultaneously; they are not mutually 
exclusive.
  The wise exploitation of our natural resources in an environmentally 
sensitive way can and should go forward, and it need not--indeed, 
should not--impinge upon our national commitment to preserve that which 
is wonderful about the American environment, and particularly the 
American West where I come from. Those two can and should work closely 
together.
  I learned another thing out of that experience and out of my time in 
the Senate: The greatest environmental degradation comes in the areas 
that are the poorest. I was talking to a friend of mine who travels 
widely around the world for his jobs. He said: The worst pollution I 
have ever seen in my entire life in all the places I have visited is in 
Katmandu. It is one of the poorest places on the planet. The reason 
they have such tremendous pollution is that they don't have the money 
necessary to clean it up.
  We in America have the money, and we have spent the money, and we are 
continuing to spend the money to see to it that we can have this 
combination of what I have spoken: Sound economic activity, along with 
proper reverence for and preservation of our environment. The aspect of 
that balancing act is this: If we do things in the name of preserving 
the environment that has the effect of destroying our 
economic strength, paradoxically, that will come back to hurt the 
environment. Environmental protection of the kind we have embarked on 
as a nation costs money. Environmental preservation of the kind to 
which we have dedicated ourselves as a people is expensive. And the 
most pollution-free and the most scenically preserved areas in the 
world are those in the areas where people are the most economically 
strong.

  I say to those who view the nomination of Gale Norton with hostility, 
recognize that if you are so pure in your determination that nothing 
whatever can be done of an economic nature on public lands, you run the 
risk of damaging those public lands. If you do things that damage the 
American economy, you undercut the American ability to pay for 
environmental protection, just as the people in southeastern

[[Page S619]]

Utah, if they say absolutely no to any kind of oil exploration or 
pumping, run the risk of degrading the economy in that part of the 
State to the point where there can be no money for environmental 
protection. The two must go hand in hand. Not only can they go hand in 
hand, they must go hand in hand for the benefit of the environment.
  The Senator from Alaska has invited me and every other Member of this 
body to go with him to the Alaskan wildlife preserve, not to be sold a 
bill of goods, not to go up there with any predetermination. He is 
willing for us to come up under whatever sponsorship and attitude we 
might have and see for ourselves what drilling at ANWR really would 
mean. In other words, he has asked Members to do what I did in southern 
Utah: Look at it on the ground. See for yourself what it would mean. I 
intend to take him up on that, by the way, Mr. President. I believe 
when we do that, we can make a wise decision without going up 
determined, either for drilling or against drilling, prior to our 
visit.
  One other personal comment about all of these debates. I served in 
the Nixon administration when the question arose as to whether or not 
to build the Alaskan pipeline. We had all of the same debates then that 
we are having now. One that I heard over and over again was the 
statement that the building of the Alaskan pipeline would not only 
disturb but would ultimately destroy the caribou herd in Alaska because 
the pipeline went right through the caribou's traditional mating 
grounds: We must not allow this; the caribou are too important; the 
caribou are too vital to our heritage to allow anything to go forward.
  That argument did not prevail back in the 1970s. The pipeline was 
built, and now we can look back at it with nearly 30 years of 
experience and discover that the amorous urges of the caribou were not 
affected by the presence of a pipeline. Indeed, the caribou herd is now 
larger than it was when the pipeline was built, and caribou that have 
been born since the pipeline was built see it as part of their natural 
environment, having not been told in advance they were going to be 
against it, and enjoy the pipeline as their mating grounds. They rub up 
against the pipeline because it is warm and it is a opportunity for 
them to get warm in a hostile environment. And the caribou, as I say 
not being educated to the contrary, think this is a good thing.

  I think we can learn a lesson from that experience, the same lesson, 
again, that we can have proper preservation of the environment and 
economic development side by side. We need not have this wide schism.
  Finally, one last story that frames my approach to this nomination, 
this seems to be my day to go down memory lane. I go way back this 
time, to the time when my father served in the Senate and the issue 
before the Senate was the building of the Glen Canyon Dam, the creation 
of Lake Powell. There were those who opposed the building of the Glen 
Canyon Dam, just as there are those now who want it dynamited and taken 
down. One of the arguments for the Glen Canyon Dam was the need for 
electric power. There were those who said: This is ridiculous. We will 
never as a nation need that much electric power. We have plenty of 
power. The building of the Glen Canyon Dam with its hydroelectric 
facility will only depress prices because it will produce so much extra 
power that we will never, ever need.
  We can look back on that, with 40 years of experience, and realize 
that their projections of this Nation's power needs were wrong and that 
we clearly do need the power. But the interesting footnote of that 
debate was this: During that debate, people said: If we should be wrong 
and somehow, some way, the country should need that much extra power, 
we do not need Glen Canyon Dam and hydroelectric power. There is all 
that coal in the Kaparowitz Plateau, right next door, that could be 
burned to provide the power that we need. So let us not build the dam. 
If we should, by some strange circumstance, need that power, we can 
always burn the coal.
  That was the argument made while my father was a Senator, trying to 
get the Glen Canyon Dam built. By coincidence, when I became a Senator, 
President Clinton used the Antiquities Act to create a national 
monument on the Kaparowitz Plateau for the sole purpose of preventing 
us from burning that coal.
  In today's circumstance it is interesting to note that the coal in 
Kaparowitz represents enough power to heat and light the city of San 
Francisco for the next 100 years. Given where we are right now in the 
California energy crisis, that is an interesting circumstance.
  So I have given this history of my own involvement to make it clear 
why I am an enthusiastic supporter of Gale Norton. She understands that 
we can do both, we must do both, and we should do both--protect the 
environment and support the economy. I say to those who say no, no, no, 
she is too extreme, on one side or the other: Do what I did. Go to the 
ground. Look at it yourself and try to take a long view of the next 20 
or 30 years and see what would be the result of Gale Norton's 
stewardship, for both the economy and the environment in that 
circumstance.
  Mr. President, I endorse her nomination. I will vote enthusiastically 
for it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me recognize the senior Senator 
from West Virginia, former President pro tempore of this body. It is 
certainly a privilege to have him in the Chair. I wish him a very good 
afternoon.
  I make an inquiry relative to the time agreement pending. Am I 
correct in assuming we have 3 hours equally divided between my 
colleague, Senator Bingaman, who cochairs the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, and myself?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Is there additional time, if necessary, to be divided 
between the leaders?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. There is an additional 
hour to be divided between the two leaders.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. For further clarification, it is my understanding that 
Tuesday at 10:30 there will be a number of Senators recognized to speak 
for roughly 2 hours?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is the intention of the leadership to vote at 2:45 
tomorrow, on the nominees, Whitman, Chao, and Norton?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chao nomination has already been disposed 
of. The other two nominees will be voted on at 2:45 p.m. tomorrow.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it is my intention to defer my extended opening 
statement and yield to Senator Domenici and then it will be Senator 
Bingaman's turn in sequence to speak at length.
  Before I yield to Senator Domenici, let me point something out 
concerning the nomination of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. 
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources voted her out with a 
mandate, 18-2. I might add, for the benefit of Members, that she 
answered some 224 written questions. She answered all of them in 
detail.
  It is my own view that the environmentalist's attacks on her have 
gone too far. I think they overstep the bounds of reasonableness. I 
think to some extent the environmental groups lost credibility with 
their overzealous attacks on her.
  If I were a member of some of those environmental groups, I would 
want to know whose decision it was to spend the millions of dollars 
that have been spent in advertisements in newspapers that made false 
statements about her record. It seems to be the case, when the facts 
are not on your side the attack seems to be on the person. It is my 
view that that is what has happened here.
  Finally, they have attempted to try to rub out the messenger, but 
they cannot rub out her message. Her message was that she will enforce 
the law if confirmed by this body.
  I yield to the senior Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time is yielded to the Senator?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield whatever time is necessary. Again, I recognize 
the junior Senator from New Mexico, and as we have agreed, we encourage 
other Senators who intend to speak to come to the floor and be heard 
this afternoon during the available time.

[[Page S620]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, is 
recognized for whatever time is necessary.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for the Senators present and for my 
friend from New Mexico who might want to speak next, I do not think I 
will use more than 10 minutes.
  First, let me say it is a pleasure seeing you in the Chair. For a 
number of years, obviously, when it was not 50/50 and we were in 
control, we did not see you there very often. Now we will and it is 
really a pleasure. I am hopeful that sometime when we have some 
difficult matters you might be there because your sense of 
parliamentary procedure is very good from what I can tell and it helps 
the whole Senate.
  Mr. President, today on the floor is the Senator from West Virginia, 
the Senator from Alaska, and two Senators from New Mexico. It is rather 
interesting because I choose today to spend my time talking about a 
very serious crisis that Gale Norton can help us with.
  The American people are just finding out that we have an energy 
crisis of serious proportions. We are on the Budget Committee and we 
will be talking about grave matters, such as Dr. Greenspan's statement 
about the surplus being so big and how we ought to start giving back to 
the people.
  You, Mr. President, sat in attendance and listened for 4 hours when 
he testified, without a recess.
  The most important thing in our society is the energy that moves 
every American's daily life. From the automobiles they drive, the 
houses they own, the ironing boards they use, the electric washing 
machines, and, yes, even the industry down the road, be it little or 
big, all use energy.
  I was on this floor way back when we had a big natural gas crisis. 
The Senator might remember it. It was one of the few times the 
Democrats told a Senator who was postcloture filibustering a natural 
gas bill to sit down. Even back then there was great fear that 
industries in America might not have enough natural gas for the 24-hour 
shift that they were on.
  It was amazing. One of the Senators who objected most to deregulating 
natural gas--and for those hearing the word ``deregulation,'' this is 
not deregulation like California deregulating the energy industry. This 
was deregulation in the sense of the marketplace determining whether 
they drilled for natural gas and what price was received.
  It was important back then. Today America has more coal than Saudi 
Arabia has oil. What is happening? We have not built a coal-burning 
powerplant in America for I do not know how long, yet the last five we 
built were all natural gas.
  There are 20-some plants in California and almost all of them are 
natural gas. They do not make us work at trying to fix the Clean Air 
Act and expand technology in order to make exchanges that will permit 
us to use what energy we own.
  We have become so frightened about nuclear power. Nuclear power does 
not have to be a nemesis to coal. America needs a diversity of energy.
  In the area of clean coal, we tried to put money into it, we even 
advanced appropriated money for clean coal technology because it was so 
important. I was here when it was done. I shared with the Senator in 
the Chair when he said: Why don't we do that?
  I said: Let's do that.
  I was not the only one, but we all did that. Even with that, we are 
so timid matching up the environment with the energy needs of America, 
and we never come down on the side of energy. It is amazing: New rules, 
new regulations, new ideas about conservation, but never has one of 
those issues come down in the last decade on the basis of how much 
energy are we losing.
  This energy crisis is so severe and this President will set about to 
solve it in a very extraordinary way. The Secretary of the Interior, 
whom we are about to confirm, will be part of solving that problem; not 
all of it, but part of it. Why? Because on the public domain lands 
owned by Americans is more of the resources for energy than on any 
other properties in America. The Senate ought to know that on the basic 
properties that we own in the West in the public domain, there is more 
natural gas than we ever thought existed. There are some who say we 
have 20, 30, 40 times more than we need. We know for sure that in the 
past 8 years, the Secretary of the Interior, a wonderful, nice man who 
got along well with all of us, succeeded in taking lands out of 
possible production. The potential of drilling a natural gas well, 
according to the experts, are enough to produce 20 times what we are 
using per year now. That is a lot.
  What if it was 10 times as much? That would be great. It means that 
much is there and we ought to get it.
  What is this Secretary going to be doing? She is going to be part of 
what I am sure this President is going to do, and that is to task more 
than one Department to be concerned about energy. He has to task the 
Interior Department to begin to make decisions based on our energy 
future. He is also going to task the energy Secretary to get on board 
as well. In my opinion, he will even task the Director of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to do the same. Nobody thinks of that 
as part of our energy solution, but it is a huge potential. They have 
not been making decisions because nobody has yet asked them to.

  When you are making something and you are balancing pluses and 
minuses, you have to consider energy at each of these Departments in 
their major decisions. We need an energy policy quickly that will let 
us have the kind of energy supply that America needs to stay on the 
path of prosperity. This kind of prosperity will cease if our companies 
do not get the electricity they need, if those who travel the roads and 
sell their products do not get electricity, if those who are building 
new small businesses in the high-tech area which use a lot of 
electricity do not get what they need, from where is this prosperity 
going to come?
  I am here today because I think it is the right time in history to 
change Secretaries of the Interior. The public had an election. They 
elected a Republican, and that means we are going to change the 
Secretary of the Interior from Mr. Babbitt, a nice man--I like him--to 
Gale Norton.
  I hope she is confirmed. She is entitled to the job. We have probably 
never had a candidate for that job who is better educated or qualified 
in the areas of her jurisdiction than this lady. She is not going to be 
a fool. She is not going to do things in any extraordinary way to cause 
the people to say: She is forgetting about the environment. You count 
on it. She is just going to say some of the things we have been doing 
in the name of conservation are not needed for the environment. We can 
change them and produce more natural gas for America.
  I am not talking only about ANWR because I do not think ANWR is a 
policy, it is part of a policy. It is part of looking at the public 
domain of America and asking, considering the nature of America's 
energy crisis now and for the next 25 or 30 years, can we preserve the 
environment? Can we produce energy and supply basic energy to help 
America continue to be the strongest nation on Earth militarily and 
economically?
  It is interesting because I could say almost the same thing about 
Christine Todd Whitman, the Environmental Protection Agency 
Administrator nominee. I know that she is not going to be able to 
exclusively consider environmental matters with total disregard for any 
cost benefit as it pertains to reasonable costs of energy. That cannot 
continue. The heyday of that is gone as America tries to find a way to 
have energy so we can be powerful and prosper and have good jobs and 
good paychecks.
  That is why I think Gale Norton should be confirmed 
overwhelmingly. There are some in this country who want to ``put 
another Secretary Babbitt in office,'' and they are angry because this 
is not another ``Secretary of the Interior Babbitt.'' As I said in 
confirmation hearings to Gale Norton: If you told the committee you 
would do everything like Secretary Babbitt, this Senator would not be 
voting for you because this is the time for a change.

  Actually, we do not need more of the last 8 years. We need somebody 
who will bring balance so we will not have the kind of crisis that is 
occurring in California and all over America.
  I want to close by saying I am very confident that our new President, 
together with these new Cabinet members will not hide from the facts. I

[[Page S621]]

know they will continue telling America that we must do some things 
differently if we want to have a vibrant country. We have a lot of 
energy sources in this country there at our disposal and we can 
preserve this country's magnificence--the beauty of our parks and the 
like--while still producing energy for the American people.
  I was very proud, as I listened to Gale Norton answering some of the 
accusations made against her. I also read about other accusations, such 
as the Summitville mining disaster in Colorado. Actually, she had more 
to do with trying to solve the Summitville crisis. Yet, that was put up 
as some reason for us voting against her.
  Some talked about the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and Rocky Flats cleanup 
in Colorado. Actually, when it is all boiled down and you look at her 
record, she did a lot to help move that along. Incidentally, it is the 
best project we have of the seven on-going in the United States in 
terms of nuclear cleanup. We still have two or three big ones in 
California and the Carolinas, and we are not sure when we will ever 
clean them up.
  So I close today. I put all the details about her background in the 
Record. Today, I have just chosen to say a few words about why she is 
going to be the right person on a team that will help move us in the 
right direction on energy. I do not think within the next 6 months to a 
year we are going to be short of good, positive ideas from this 
administration. I think they will come. I do not think we will be 
frightened by any of these ideas.
  To reiterate, I support the nomination of Gale Norton as the new 
Secretary of Interior. She has extensive legal, regulatory, state and 
federal government experience which duly qualifies her to serve as 
Secretary of a department as diverse as Interior.
  The Interior Department has a broad mission which includes 
responsibility for the internal development of the nation and the 
welfare of its people. It's broad coverage includes managing parks, 
water issues, basic responsibilities for American Indians, public lands 
management, and the rational exploration of our wilderness areas in 
balance with preserving our nation's resources.
  Gale Norton has worked for over 20 years on environmental and federal 
land issues. She has demonstrated her commitment to a safe and clean 
environment by bringing all parties together in an effort to find 
solutions to these complex issues. She has proven herself as a 
negotiator, a skilled legal mind and a defender of the law. She 
exemplifies the qualities of a consensus builder, not a divider.
  The issues arising in these areas are some of the most complex and 
contentious and require a leader who can balance the various competing 
interests. Gale Norton has repeatedly demonstrated that she is this 
type of leader.
  One example of Gale Norton's consensus building leadership is 
exemplified in her handling of western water issues. She has led 
efforts to bring together state water users, federal agencies, and 
Indian tribes to settle water use disputes. In particular, during the 
Romer-Schoettler process that led to the development of the Colorado 
Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000, which recently passed Congress, 
Gale Norton worked to ensure that the water rights settlement with the 
two Colorado Ute Indian Tribes would be fulfilled in a way that would 
respect existing water uses and the social fabric of the area. This 
included balancing a variety of interests including that of current 
users and the Ute tribes while looking out for potential development 
and considering the needs of endangered species. Ms. Norton honored 
Colorado's commitments to both the Tribes and the non-Indians living 
and working in Southwest Colorado and Northwest New Mexico. She worked 
through a very contentious issue looking for consensus and reasonable 
solutions.
  Ms. Norton has mentioned the priority the new administration intends 
to place on American Indian issues. I commend her on her past efforts 
related to these issues, such as her role in the Animas La-Plata 
project, and I look forward to working with the new administration on 
American Indian issues.
  Ms. Norton has had other extensive experience with western water 
issues. She has actively participated in the negotiation, litigation, 
and settlement of multi-state compact claims and has dealt with other 
complex water issues including federal reservation rights, interstate 
water use, and the balance between water rights protection for states 
and preservation of endangered species.
  Gale Norton has successfully balanced environmental concerns while 
being sensitive to businesses and other citizens whose interests are at 
stake. Ms. Norton created an environmental crimes task force to 
prosecute the most flagrant polluters. She played a leading role in the 
cleanup of numerous sites in Colorado to protect the environment and 
ensure its preservation for future generations.
  Ms. Norton has always worked to find innovative ways to protect the 
environment. While at Stanford she researched ``emissions trading'' 
approaches, like those adopted in the Clean Air Act, that created 
market based incentives for businesses to reduce emissions. The 
Colorado ``audit law'' that Gale Norton supported achieved better 
environmental protection by encouraging early and full identification 
of environmental problems and, most importantly, long term solutions.
  Ms. Norton is committed to enforcing the law and has a record of 
bipartisan cooperation and negotiation. Additionally, Ms. Norton 
understands the importance of the relationship between States and the 
federal government and has proven her ability to negotiate with both. 
She has worked towards finding innovative solutions to environmental 
problems, while at the same time working towards the goals advocated by 
interested parties. She understands that these issues are important to 
a variety of people and will work to ensure that all competing 
interests are balanced within existing laws.
  I am convinced that Interior needs this type of balanced leadership, 
and needs that leadership today. I look forward to working with Gale 
Norton as the new Secretary of Interior and it is my strong 
recommendation that the Senate move quickly to approve her nomination.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will give a short statement that 
relates to the nomination of Gale Norton myself, and then I know there 
are three other Democratic Senators here who have indicated a desire to 
speak briefly. I know Senator Murkowski wishes to speak, and there are 
others on his side as well.
  As the principal steward of our public lands, the Secretary of the 
Interior is responsible for overseeing and protecting the natural and 
cultural treasures of our Nation, including all units of our National 
Park System, national wildlife refuges, most national monuments, 
national conservation areas, and many of our wilderness areas.
  When the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Senator 
Murkowski chairs, and which I serve on as the ranking Democrat, began 
its hearings on the nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary of the 
Interior, I indicated that I had serious doubts about whether Ms. 
Norton's past views on the role of the Federal Government in enforcing 
environmental protection laws were consistent with the responsibilities 
of the Secretary of the Interior. In her many published articles, Ms. 
Norton had amassed a record that championed the rights of individuals 
over the public interest in many natural resource issues; she had 
argued that key environmental protection laws--including critical 
provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the Surface Mining Act--
were unconstitutional; and she had often supported the interests of 
economic development over environmental protection.
  During two days of hearings, however, Gale Norton presented a much 
different picture of her future actions as Secretary of the Interior, a 
different picture than her previous writings would have suggested. She 
testified that she was, as she put it, a ``passionate conservationist'' 
and that her ``top priority'' will be the ``conservation of America's 
natural resources.'' She recognized that--this is a quote from her 
testimony--``the great wild places and unspoiled landscapes of this

[[Page S622]]

country are the common heritage of all Americans'' and she pledged to 
work to conserve them for present and future generations.
  She testified in support of laws she had previously opposed. She 
proposed the committee--this is a quote from her testimony--she ``will 
be fully committed to ensuring that our nation's environmental laws and 
laws for the protection of natural resources will be fully enforced.''
  With respect to the Endangered Species Act, she testified that she 
supports not only the goals of the act, but also that she ``will apply 
the Act as it is written, and as the courts have interpreted it.'' When 
specifically asked whether she will support the protection of critical 
habitat for threatened and endangered speices--a provision she had 
previously opposed while attorney general of Colorado--Ms. Norton 
replied that ``the courts have decided that, in addition to things that 
affect the species directly, the Fish and Wildlife Service has the 
ability to regulate on private land, and I will enforce that 
provision.''
  When questioned about another key environmental law she had earlier 
opposed, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Ms. Norton 
testified that ``I will certainly enforce the law in the way it has 
been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.''
  Contrary to some of her critics' past accusations, Ms. Norton 
testified that it will be her responsibility to enforce Federal 
environmental laws, and that she will ensure that all parties comply 
with those laws. She expressly refuted a previous statement written 
long ago suggesting that corporations had a ``right to pollute.''

  She made it very clear that both President Bush and she support 
continuing the moratoriums on offshore oil and gas leasing off the 
coasts of California and Florida, and that she would work with other 
States opposing drilling activities off their coastlines.
  Finally, she recognized the Secretary's special responsibility to 
Native Americans, and promised to improve Indian education programs.
  In addition to answering two days of questions before our committee, 
she responded in writing to another 227 questions that were submitted 
to her by committee members and other Senators.
  It is clear that the Gale Norton who testified before our committee 
presented different views about the Federal Government and its role in 
protecting the environment than the Gale Norton who authored 
controversial articles challenging that same Federal authority 
previously. Frankly, reconciling some of her past views with her 
current testimony is not that easy.
  However, I take Gale Norton at her word when she testified under oath 
in front of our committee that she will uphold our Nation's 
environmental laws, and that she will be a strong defender of our 
natural and cultural heritage. I listened to all of her testimony and 
have reviewed all of her written responses to our questions. Based on 
her testimony and those written responses, to our questions, and 
because of the promises she made at the hearing, I am supporting her 
nomination.
  While I will vote to confirm her nomination tomorrow, I still do have 
reservations about some issues that Ms. Norton declined to provide 
specific answers for. For example, she did not take a position on 
whether she would work to ensure the protection of those areas 
designated as national monuments by President Clinton, or whether she 
would support efforts to modify or repeal the Antiquities Act. She did 
not give us specifics as to how she will balance the Secretary of the 
Interior's resource protection responsibilities against the need to 
ensure continued energy resources from public lands. She avoided 
answering questions on whether she will support and enforce Federal 
reserved water rights for wilderness areas or endangered species.
  In the final analysis, Gale Norton's actions on these and other 
issues as Secretary of the Interior will ultimately speak louder than 
any statements made during her confirmation hearing. While I am willing 
to give her the benefit of the doubt, I know that other Senators--and 
some who will speak here--still have reservations about whether she 
will be able to set aside her past policy positions and be a strong 
advocate for protecting the critical Federal resources under her 
domain.
  But, based on the assurances she gave our committee, I will support 
her confirmation. I expect her to honor the commitments she has made to 
me and to other Senators to justify the trust that the Senate is going 
to place in her when she is confirmed tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in order to accommodate Members who 
have been waiting, I wonder if Senator Bingaman and I could agree to 
allowing time off each side by various Senators. I will ask Senators in 
the order in which they appear. We would like to go back and forth.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe the order Senators appeared 
was Senator Wyden, then Senator Feinstein from California, then Senator 
Breaux from Louisiana, and I believe Senator Stevens from Alaska. That 
is the order they appeared.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no objection. I ask each Member how much time 
they might request. We want to run time equally. It is immaterial to 
me. We can run it equally.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time does the Senator from Oregon require?
  Mr. WYDEN. I believe about 15 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will be glad to yield 15 minutes off of my time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Then is it the understanding that we would go in that 
order; is that agreeable? It would be understood that after Senator 
Wyden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Breaux, and then Senator Stevens, and 
then we will perhaps start again and go back and forth after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator please state the names in 
sequence so the Chair will have a clear understanding?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. It is my understanding that Senator 
Wyden would be recognized next, and the time would be 15 minutes, and 
it would be off the time of the minority, if that is agreeable; Senator 
Feinstein, the time would be 10 minutes, and that would be off Senator 
Bingaman's time; Senator Breaux, 5 minutes from Senator Bingaman's 
time; and then Senator Stevens for 7 or 8 minutes from our time. That 
would be the proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Again, I recommend any Senators who intend to 
participate please come to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, every day the Secretary of the Interior 
makes decisions that directly affect the quality of life in the West. 
This Department manages almost 500 million acres of public lands, and 
the debates that westerners have about the management of these lands 
are not for the fainthearted. To the people I represent, controversies 
about spotted owls, raging forest fires and mining waste are not 
intellectual abstractions. Almost invariably, discussions about these 
issues divide into two camps, with the environmental community on one 
side, and the affected industries on the other. Finding common ground 
between these two camps is extraordinarily difficult, but it is the 
premier challenge in the natural resources field.
  Today--and I say this with reluctance--I rise to state that I will be 
voting no on this nomination. I still have reservations about the 
nominee's commitment to make, as the central focus of her office, the 
bringing together of these two camps, the environmental community and 
the affected industries, to find common ground. America wants and 
deserves this because it is the common ground where we can protect our 
treasures and be sensitive to local economic needs.
  First, I do not necessarily share the views of those who believe that 
Gale Norton will throw open the doors at Interior, invite in powerful 
interest groups and say: Feel free to plunder our natural treasures and 
resources. In her testimony before the committee, Ms. Norton committed 
to not just enforce the Federal environmental laws as written but also 
as interpreted by the courts. In my opinion, she significantly changed 
her previous position on the Endangered Species Act, the so-called 
right to pollute, and global warming science.

[[Page S623]]

  The Gale Norton who testified this month before the Senate is 
certainly no James Watt, but at this unique time in our history, that 
distinction alone is not enough to warrant confirmation.
  My reservations about this nominee fall into two major areas. First, 
Ms. Norton's desire to provide flexibility to private parties and the 
States to comply with our environmental laws has not been accompanied 
by a demonstrated commitment to watchdog those companies and the States 
to ensure that our national treasures are not exploited.
  Ms. Norton is right--what works for the Bronx does not necessarily 
work for Prineville, Oregon. One size does not fit all. But her 
demonstrated record suggests that she did not come down with hobnail 
boots on private parties who abuse our national treasures in the name 
of exercising flexibility.
  Look at what happened at Summitville in Colorado where a vast amount 
of cyanide spilled into the Alamosa River. Colorado was supposed to 
supervise that mine. It was the State's job and the State didn't do it.
  When I asked Ms. Norton at the confirmation hearings how she would 
prevent future ``Summitvilles,'' she was unwilling to say that the key 
to preventing these environmental tragedies is leadership that steps in 
when private parties go over the line. After Summitville, Ms. Norton 
could have immediately pushed to extend the statute of limitations on 
environmental crimes, which would have allowed criminal prosecution in 
that case. But she didn't, and respected Colorado commentators took her 
to task for not doing so.
  In another case involving heavy metal pollution at the Asarco plant 
in the Globeville neighborhood of Denver, Ms. Norton said she couldn't 
move quickly and aggressively because she could act only on referrals 
from the State health department. Every U.S. State senator knows that a 
State attorney general has more power than that. The State attorney 
general has the power to call in the officials from State agencies that 
are not doing their job and tell them to get on the stick and protect 
the public and the environment. Ms. Norton could have even taken her 
concerns about the State health department dragging its feet to the 
public, but she didn't. That absence of leadership led to a settlement 
from her agency that was so inadequate that a private citizens lawsuit 
recovered significantly more damages than Ms. Norton did.
  The Secretary of the Interior has wide latitude under the law as to 
who gets the land for leases or how the land will be handled under 
those leases. The Secretary of the Interior has the right to say we 
will lease this land for oil and gas, but we will not lease this land 
for coal exploration or we will not lease it at all or we will lease it 
with the following requirements to protect the environment. For 
example, many new oil and gas leases require the lessee to take the 
special precautions to protect wildlife on public lands. By Secretarial 
order, Ms. Norton could direct the Bureau of Land Management to weaken 
protective requirements enclosed in oil and gas leases, and at the same 
time significantly harm the environment. The fact is, the power of this 
office could allow virtually any private interest to build in one of 
our national treasures. In addition, through this office, the Secretary 
of the Interior can do much to deep six the prosecution of egregious 
environmental disasters. The reality here is: whether lawyers for the 
Interior Department are handling a case or the Justice Department is 
handling it, the Secretary of the Interior will be consulted just as 
any client is consulted by a lawyer about important appeals. Should 
there be an appeal at all? What kind of settlement would be 
appropriate? Is this offer satisfactory? Given Ms. Norton's record, the 
evidence does not demonstrate that she will be tough with polluters. 
The fact is, as you try to find the common ground between the 
environmental community and the affected industries, when one of those 
parties goes over the line, you do have to have a Secretary of the 
Interior who is willing to be tough about using the enforcement 
capabilities of the office.
  Finally, I am concerned about Ms. Norton's interest and willingness 
to do the heavy lifting, to bring parties together, to find creative 
solutions to vexing environmental problems.
  I am proud to have been able to work with the Senator from Idaho, Mr. 
Craig, in an effort that was successful in the last session to resolve 
the question of how you pay for schools and roads in rural communities 
that have historically been tied to the harvest of timber. When Senator 
Craig and I started that effort, the two sides were 180 degrees apart, 
and virtually no one thought we could bring them together. But with 
good will and rolling up our sleeves, we were able to do it.
  When Ms. Norton was kind enough to come visit me at my office, I 
asked her to bring to the committee specific examples of how she would 
try similar efforts on other longstanding conflicts, such as the 
Endangered Species Act. I thought for a long time that it was extremely 
important to relieve some of the redtape and bureaucratic requirements 
on small private landowners, for example, under the Endangered Species 
Act, and I believe that can be done without destroying the mission of 
that critical statute. That would be the kind of thing that I would 
like to see the Secretary of the Interior take on and bring together 
these rival camps in an effort to find common ground.
  But she didn't give us those examples at the hearing that was 
scheduled. I asked--not just when she came to the office, but at the 
hearing--for specifics where she might work to try these common ground 
efforts that are so important, but none were furnished.
  So I will be a reluctant vote on Ms. Norton. I strongly hope that her 
record proves me wrong. As I stated in the committee, it would not be 
the first time, nor the last time, that that was the case. I hope Ms. 
Norton goes on to lead the Interior Department and that she will, in 
fact, look for specific ways to do what the President of the United 
States is asking us in natural resources and other areas, and that is 
to unite, not divide. On that important objective articulately stated 
by the President of the United States, Ms. Norton will always have my 
assistance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, 
has 10 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I associate myself 
with the comments made by the ranking member, the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. My assessment of this nominee is 
approximately the same. I will vote for her, and I want to take a few 
moments to explain to this honorable body why I will vote for her.
  I am a new member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. As such, I had an opportunity to hear her answers to 
questions presented firsthand, and I also had an opportunity to talk 
with her in my office. I talked with her about specific California 
issues. The first was something called CALFED; second, the Colorado 
River decision; third, oil drilling off the coast of California; 
fourth, the land and water conservation fund.
  I think virtually all Members of this body know about the energy or 
electricity crisis in California, but I think what perhaps many Members 
of this body might not understand is that water is close behind.
  Beginning in 1993, I asked Interior Secretary Babbitt if he would sit 
down and meet with the so-called water constituencies in California--
the agricultural farmers, the environmentalists, the urban water users, 
a group called stakeholders in California's water future. As often 
said, whiskey is for drinking but water is for fighting. Lawsuit after 
lawsuit had characterized the situation with respect to water.
  The basic fact is that California has a water infrastructure for 16 
million people. That is when it was built, when Pat Brown was Governor 
of the State. Today the State has 34 million people, and it will be 50 
million people within 20 years--with the same water infrastructure. 
That is not good for the ecosystem, not good for the largest 
agricultural State in the Nation, and it is certainly not good for 
clean drinking water for the people of California.
  To make a long story short, this CALFED venture culminated last year 
in an agreement between the Governor of the State and the Secretary of 
the Interior called ``A Plan For Action.'' That plan for action 
involved the State water project, which is the California water 
project, and the federally run,

[[Page S624]]

built, and operated project, the Central Valley Project. It is to be a 
$7 billion shared program over the next 7 years with some 700 
individual projects. That program needs both an authorization this year 
and an appropriation this year as well. There was an attempt last year 
and it failed. So to have a Secretary of the Interior who would be 
willing, one, to put an appropriation, which is a substantial one, in 
her budget to send up to the Office of Management and Budget this year 
is important to me. Secondly, to have a Secretary of the Interior who 
is willing to designate a high-level member of her Department, just as 
Secretary Babbitt designated the Under Secretary to oversee the 
development of this State-Federal program, is important to me as well.
  Ms. Norton has agreed to do both. She has agreed to take a good 
look--I know she has called the Office of Management and Budget and 
advocated for the CALFED program because we were called by OMB and they 
said that she had done so. Secondly, she has assured us that she will 
appoint a high-level official to oversee the various meetings with the 
stakeholders.
  So for me, my No. 1 environmental priority this year is the 
authorization and the appropriation of the first year of a new CALFED 
program. I believe she has an open mind. I think she understands the 
importance of water. I think she understands the outdated nature of the 
water infrastructure, the struggle to keep the salmon running, to keep 
high-quality water for people to drink, and enough water to be able to 
produce what is in excess of a $25 billion agricultural industry.

  I also discussed with her the recent 15-year Colorado River 
agreement, which has been now agreed to by seven States, which will 
ensure that California will receive no more than its annual allowance 
of 4.4 million acre feet of water from the Colorado River.
  The fact is, because of this water shortage, California has been 
overdrawing the Colorado River allotment by some 800,000 acre feet a 
year. Southern California, which uses water from the Colorado, has 
employed all sorts of additional water conservation methodology, water 
recycling and water transfer measures, to ensure that there will be 
enough water for the other States.
  I am a strong supporter of this agreement. I would like to see it go 
forward. I believe this Secretary will do her due diligence on the 
agreement and also agree that it is a major and positive step forward 
for the seven affected States.
  She has also categorically assured me that there will be no offshore 
oil drilling off the coast of California. That is something the people 
of California have very strong opposition to, and I believe she will 
keep her word.
  We also spoke about the importance of the land and water conservation 
fund. I happen to believe it can be the most important environmental 
program. I think there is an accumulation of $13 billion in offshore 
oil revenues that can go for appropriation into the land and water 
conservation fund.
  I supported a bill Senator Murkowski and Senator Landrieu had put 
together, plus my own bill, which would assure the appropriation of 
some of this money on a regular basis--approximately $900 million of 
that money.
  I see the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on which I am a 
lowly member, and I know appropriators don't necessarily like being 
told how to appropriate. However, I can say this: I think the Land & 
Water Conservation Fund offers this Senate and the House of 
Representatives an opportunity for major improvements in our 
environmental legacy. I am hopeful that issue might be settled. I know 
there has been some significant opposition to Gale Norton. As a former 
Colorado attorney general, she has taken some positions with which I 
disagree. However, she had every right to do so.
  I, for example, was troubled by her 1997 op-ed when she said there 
was no consensus on global warming. And quite categorically, to our 
committee, she stated that times have changed--and indeed they have--
and that she has had an opportunity to reconsider her point of view and 
does in fact believe that global warming is real. I think what came 
through to me the most clearly when I had an opportunity to talk with 
her was that this is a very talented woman. She has strong skills. She 
is flexible. She is trying very hard to maintain an open mind, and I 
think it is very possible that she is going to do an excellent job as 
Secretary of the Interior.
  At the very least, she has convinced me that she is willing to work 
on issues in a bipartisan fashion. She is willing to address the 
difficult issues which will confront her, as I believe she is open 
minded and I feel as though I can pick up the phone and call her and 
that she will, A, either return that call, or, B, listen to my concerns 
and try to work them out. As a Senator from the largest State in the 
Nation, that means a great deal to me.
  I want to say one thing. I returned last night from Switzerland where 
I attended the World Economic Forum. I cannot tell you how deeply 
troubled other nations are by the fact that, as they see it, the United 
States is unwilling to put forward a major environmental presence. They 
express concern that the United States, with 4 percent of the world's 
population, uses 25 percent of the energy. They are concerned about 
global warming--particularly nations that are low lying that see the 
sea rising and have the possibility, within decades, of some of their 
coastal cities being wiped out. They are concerned about deforestation 
of the rain forest and the loss of wetlands, and they are concerned 
about clean air and clean water. I share their concerns. I believe this 
new Secretary of the Interior will also share these concerns as the 
chief steward of land managed by the National Park Service, the Bureau 
of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. 
Geological Service.
  In California alone, this includes the Mojave National Preserve, 
Yosemite, Joshua Tree, and Death Valley National Parks.
  She has a tremendous responsibility.
  I end my remarks by saying, once again, that she is a talented woman. 
She is flexible. She is committed, I believe, and she has the 
opportunity to be a very positive Secretary of the Interior. I will be 
very happy to cast my vote for Gale Norton.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana was ahead of 
me. I will be pleased to wait for him, if Senator Bingaman would like 
me to do so.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I don't know where he is. I suggest the 
Senator from Alaska go right ahead.
  Mr. STEVENS. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to come to the floor to 
support the nominations of Gale Norton to be Secretary of the 
Department of the Interior. She has a proven record as a public servant 
and the credentials, experience, and character to be a great Secretary 
of the Interior. I know a little bit about this Department. I was at 
the Interior Department during the days of President Eisenhower first 
as a legislative counsel, then as Assistant to the Secretary of the 
Interior, Fred Seaton, and then as the Solicitor of the Interior 
Department. I recall that in those days we had informal meetings with 
Members of Congress to discuss the real issues facing Federal land 
managers and the people living and working near those lands. Those were 
nonpartisan talks that assured the success of later more formal 
administrative and legislative initiatives during the Eisenhower 
administration.
  In Alaska, one-third of the lands are managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management, two-thirds of the lands managed by the National park 
Service, and almost 90 percent of the lands managed by the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. All agencies of the Department of the Interior, and 
one-quarter of all the lands under the management of the Interior 
Department have been declared to be wilderness by the U.S. Congress and 
not available for our use.
  Many of Alaska's Native people, as well as other Alaskans, live 
within the boundaries of these Federal conservation areas that have 
been withdrawn. They make their livelihood off of the land, and many 
times there are conflicts between our people and the Department of the 
Interior.
  As an Alaskan, I am very pleased to support Gale Norton because of 
her background, and as a Senator, I say to

[[Page S625]]

my colleagues that we are most fortunate to have this brilliant young 
woman as a guardian of our Nation's lands and native people. As a 
lawyer, she will look beyond rhetoric. As a former Interior Department 
official, she will understand the duty and stewardship and traditions 
of that Department. As a former attorney general of a Western State, 
she will remember the communities and the people who neighbor Federal 
lands under her jurisdiction. I shall vote for her nomination and 
welcome the opportunity to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Idaho seeking 
time. May I ask how much he might require at this time? I yield 12 
minutes, and I think Senator Bingaman and I agree that when Senator 
Breaux returns, he will be recognized. I also am under the impression 
that Senator Warner will be coming to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee for yielding me time to speak on 
behalf of the nomination of Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior. 
As someone who knows Ms. Norton, I commend her to my colleagues as an 
Interior Secretary who will cooperate with Congress and collaborate 
with States and local governments and communities of interest affected 
by her Department's decisions.
  I also commend her to my colleagues as a person who demonstrated in 
her two days of testimony before the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources that she possesses the balanced views and judgment and 
personality required to be a Secretary of the Interior. That was 
perhaps somewhat of a surprise, I think, to some of our committee 
members who had heard about Ms. Norton only through the advertisements 
of a $2 million media campaign waged against her nomination by national 
environmental groups. I don't believe it has been since Jackie 
Gleason--and we remember Jackie Gleason, fist doubled up, face 
flushed--railing against his Honeymooner's neighbor by the name of 
Norton. We kept hearing ``Norton, Norton.'' I don't think we have heard 
that name Norton, spoken with so much venom since the days of Jackie 
Gleason. Unfortunately, national environmental groups literally have 
become the Ralph Cramden of the advocacy community--overbearing, 
overwrought, and overstuffed--in their case, with foundation money that 
could have been so much better spent on on-the-ground conservation 
priorities.

  The Senate confirmation process is also a bit of an acronym in this 
era of 24/7 news coverage--that is, round the clock news coverage and 
continuous campaigning. Every elected official knows, as we all must 
understand, the peril of letting an attack against a candidate or a 
legislative proposal go unanswered within a 24-hour news cycle. And 
yet, to protect our prerogatives as Senators in this process that we 
are talking about today, we insist that nominees for public office 
remain silent until they appear before us for their confirmation 
hearings.
  At those hearings on January 18 and 19, Ms. Norton finally was able 
to speak about what she believes and who she is. The contrast with what 
was falsely portrayed in 3 weeks of intensified interest group 
advertising was stark and it was vivid. It contributed, I think, to the 
overwhelming vote by the committee in favor of her confirmation.
  Two themes, in particular, that emerged from her testimony, deserve 
the close attention of all of our colleagues. First, this is an 
Interior Secretary who is committed to working with Congress. That is a 
refreshing and important concept. Both in her opening statement, as 
well as in several thoughtful responses to questions, Ms. Norton 
expressed her commitment to working with Members of Congress from both 
sides of the aisle to develop bipartisan solutions to difficult natural 
resource problems. This is a sharp contrast to her predecessor who made 
no secret of his disdain for the congressional authorizing committees 
as little more than ``highly partisan debating societies'' that were 
staffed by ``munchkins'' and that do nothing more than ``wrangle a 
lot'' about the issues of the day. I also doubt that we will see Ms. 
Norton walk off camera during a ``20/20'' interview, swearing under her 
breath.
  Second, this is an Interior Secretary who is committed to listening 
and working with the people affected by her decisions. She said:

       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 
     magnificent resources for ideas, for knowledge, for insight. 
     I have lived and worked here in Washington. I have also lived 
     and worked in the great American West. Those of us in 
     Washington need to be good partners with Americans living in 
     other parts of the country and in our territories. America is 
     a strong nation because of the diversity of its people. These 
     people hold many different views in different perspectives. 
     We need to work with them, to involve them, to benefit from 
     their creativity and their capacity to innovate.

  What a refreshing statement compared with the Secretary of the 
Interior who has now just left this city.
  I submit to my colleagues that, whatever our differences with one 
another over the contentious issues and whatever differences some or 
all of us may ultimately have with the new administration, starting off 
with the Secretary of the Interior who is committed to being a listener 
is a very good place to begin. As she so eloquently said at her 
confirmation hearing, ``Using consultation and collaboration, forging 
partnerships with interested citizens, together we can all succeed in 
our effort to conserve America's most precious resources.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote favorably for the nomination of Gale 
Norton to be Secretary of the Interior of the United States. Our 
environment, our public land resources, and the Nation as a whole 
depend upon it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. To clarify, prior to my colleague from Colorado coming 
to the floor, we had an agreement that Senator Breaux would be the next 
recognized speaker, and Senator Breaux did show up, so I guess we will 
have to live with that.
  Mr. ALLARD. That will be fine. I am happy to wait until the Senator 
finishes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think Senator Breaux wanted about 8 minutes.
  Mr. BREAUX. More or less.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Colorado will be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. It is Breaux by a nose.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for making time available on 
this very important nomination as to who is going to be the new 
Secretary of the Interior, a very important position for all Americans. 
We as a nation have a major interest in knowing that the person who is 
to be in charge of the managing of all of our public lands and much of 
our public resources is going to be a person who brings a balanced 
philosophy to that task. It is an immense task for which I imagine no 
one who would be nominated would ever be considered the perfect 
nominee.
  What I mean by that is it seems to me there will be some, and I think 
a minority of people in both camps, who would say they would perhaps 
like to have a Secretary of the Interior who would bring almost no 
management responsibilities to that task, who would basically say we 
should let the private sector develop the resources of this country in 
whatever way they saw fit. There is probably another group of people in 
the country--again a very small number--who would say no, when it is 
public lands, they cannot be utilized for private purposes ever; that 
it should be micromanaged by the Federal Government out of Washington; 
you can limit activity to only what is absolutely needed.
  I think the better philosophy for this very important job is to bring 
a balance. In my conversations with Gale Norton, I have come to the 
conclusion that she is a person who can bring a

[[Page S626]]

management-type philosophy to this job.
  Neither of the two extremes that I describe will probably be very 
happy with the approach she uses. Some will say in many cases she is 
being far too restrictive and limits to too much detail what can be 
done on our public lands. Others will say she is not being aggressive 
enough in allowing for development on these resources.
  The answers to these questions, simply stated, are that we want a 
balanced person for the job. We want someone who brings commonsense 
policies to this important task, and commonsense policies is a phrase I 
have heard used in describing Gale Norton.
  In addition, I think she will be a person who will consider multiple 
use of these valuable properties. What do I mean by that? What I mean 
is that Federal lands owned by our Government can be used for more than 
just one purpose; yes, there are lands that are particularly set aside 
as wildlife refuges and conservation areas and wilderness areas. My 
argument is that these areas can be subject to multiple use in a 
fashion that preserves the intent of why this area was set aside in the 
first place and at the same time allows for balanced development which 
is compatible with that purpose.
  There has been a great deal made about the new administration's 
consideration of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the 
State of Alaska. I happen to think that is something that can be done. 
It is not without risk. Nothing we do as a society is without some 
risk, some adverse consequences, but history tells us that we can have 
a wildlife refuge in an area of the country where ANWR is located and 
find there are uses that are compatible to that refuge that make sense 
from a public policy standpoint.
  That is where the question of whether it is going to be balanced 
comes into play. I note that when I met with Ms. Norton in my office, 
we talked about that, and I suggested she look at the record in 
Louisiana where we have had exploration and development on wildlife 
refuges for over 60 years. We have almost 1,700 wells that have been 
drilled on wildlife refuges, both Federal and State refuges, including 
property owned by environmental groups, that has been done 
successfully. Because we have been doing it since the 1940s, we have 
made mistakes that would not be made in the year 2001 and beyond 
because we, in fact, have learned from those mistakes.
  I argue that an area such as ANWR, which is covered over in the 
winter months with solid sheets of ice, an area where there would be no 
necessity for dredging canals to get to the property, where there is 
already a major pipeline running from Prudhoe Bay down to Valdez, is an 
ecosystem that can allow for exploration and production in a manner 
that would be compatible with the purpose of the refuge.
  I argue the refuges in Louisiana where we have that type of 
production are much more complicated. We have much greater abundance of 
wildlife than they do in ANWR. We have everything from alligators to 
fur-bearing animals, to waterfowl, ducks, geese, shrimp, oysters, and 
fin fish, all within the same ecosystem in a very fragile wetland area. 
If we are able to do it under those circumstances, I argue that 
certainly ANWR can also allow for the compatible exploration and 
production in their area if it is done carefully in a managed fashion.
  As far as what is potentially available in that area, they tell me 
the latest estimates are that it could produce up to 1.5 million 
barrels a day of oil for at least 25 years, a sum that is equal to 
nearly 25 percent of our daily oil consumption.
  Some people say: That is not that much. Yes, it is. It is a 
considerable amount, and if you look at California, which is 
experiencing blackouts and operations which are being curtailed because 
of either unavailability of energy or because of the high cost of 
energy, how can we say that we are going to just build a fence around 
an area which will potentially be the second largest energy-producing 
region of all of North America?
  We have to take a balanced approach, look at it carefully, look at 
what we have done in other areas, and then make a decision not based on 
emotion but based on the facts of the situation. When I spoke with Ms. 
Norton and listened to what she was thinking of doing, that was a 
balanced position she would bring to this job. I am pleased to stand 
and urge my colleagues to support her. This Congress will watch 
carefully how she conducts the affairs of the Department of the 
Interior because this is something that affects all Americans, whether 
you are a Westerner, a Southerner, or someone in an urbanized area in 
New England. I think she can do a good job, will do a good job, and I 
look forward to working with her.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Montana seeking 
recognition, to be followed by Senator Allard from Colorado. Senator 
Warner indicated an interest in speaking.
  How much time does the Senator from Montana require?
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I will try my best to keep it under 10 
minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that and leave it up to the clerk to 
monitor the clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am very glad to stand today and voice my 
support for Gale Norton as this country's next Secretary of the 
Interior. After meeting with Ms. Norton and sitting in on her 
confirmation hearings, I am convinced she is the right person for the 
job. Not only am I impressed with her good ideas and her willingness to 
listen, but I am impressed with the balance of thought she will be 
bringing to the Department. She knows that the challenges in that 
Department are probably larger than any other department in Washington, 
DC. She also has an idea about how she wants to deal with them.
  As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and also a 
member of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, I look forward 
to working with Ms. Norton. If confirmed as the next Secretary of the 
Interior, she will be called upon to appear in front of these 
committees, and she will ultimately be held responsible for the 
workings of the agencies under her supervision.
  When we have questions or concerns about the National Park Service or 
the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, just to name a few, we will come to 
her. I am grateful for that because I think what we are looking for, 
more than anything else, is balance instead of activism.
  Like most Western States, Montana has a lot of public land, and we 
are affected every day by some of the decisions that are made regarding 
Federal land because they determine whether we will make a living or 
not in our State. Sometimes Government is a very good neighbor; 
sometimes it is not. I think Ms. Norton understands that, coming from a 
public lands State.
  One thing in particular: Last year, the year 2000, we know how the 
fires swept across the West. No State was more affected than New Mexico 
or the State of Montana. In fact, Congress appropriated $1.6 billion to 
help fix the damage from the summer of 2000 and also to make sure we 
will be prepared should another catastrophe such as that happen again. 
We would rather that not be repeated.
  In the year 2000, almost 1 million acres burned in Montana, some of 
it public. Plenty of the land was private, however, because private 
lands lay next to those forest lands--forest land, grassland, pasture 
land, homes, businesses, and everything in between. It was a dark, dark 
summer for us in Montana.
  We are approaching spring again, and the work is just beginning. We 
need to reseed the burned areas to keep the soil from eroding. We need 
to make sure the watersheds stay clean. One of the most important 
things we can do is to make sure the noxious weeds do not take our 
newly burned land. I know a lot of folks say everything has grown back. 
Nine times out of 10, it is a noxious weed. When they take hold, the 
native plants are crowded out, wildlife habitat is compromised, 
livestock-carrying capacity is reduced, and the condition of the land 
is jeopardized for years to come.

  So we need to get after it and get this land cleaned up, making sure 
those lands that are remaining now are

[[Page S627]]

protected because we are again looking at a very difficult time. Our 
snow pack is low again this year. We have not had moisture since before 
Christmas. Again, we are looking at another year that could be another 
drought year in Montana. We will need people who are not afraid to make 
decisions, make them quickly, and make the right decision that protects 
the land.
  You have to appreciate Ms. Norton for another area, too. Under the 
previous administration, we withdrew a lot of land from minerals 
management, resource management, and resource development. We have an 
energy crisis in this country. Maybe you are not affected by it now, 
but our friends from California are. The last time I looked around, 
California was still a part of this great country, which makes us 
concerned about what happens to our good friends in California.
  It is just not a California problem. If you come from the Northwest, 
where we produce an abundance of electrical power, you see that power 
sucked away from our area, going to California. I do not begrudge 
Californians the power. But I also have to be a little bit nervous 
about having power for the people in the Northwest.
  When they are in trouble, we are in trouble. We have built no new 
generating facilities. We just came from an administration that wanted 
to breach the dams that produce electricity for the West and the 
national grid. That is irresponsible. Conservation, yes. It is of vital 
importance to all our energy needs. But conservation will not do it 
alone.
  We were very successful the last time we faced an energy crisis, 
when, way back in 1976, we did a lot of good through conservation. And 
we are still doing a lot of good through conservation. But we failed to 
build any more facilities to produce power, electricity.
  I will tell you, electricity does not come Republican or Democrat. I 
will tell you where it comes from. The first time that finger hits that 
switch, and these lights do not go on, it becomes a national crisis.
  I think Ms. Norton will be able to play a vital role in resource 
management when it comes to solving some of the power problems and 
energy crises that we are facing today.
  When we look at public lands, energy development and access to public 
lands are vital issues. These things will be coming up again and again 
over the next few years because I truly believe the chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources probably has his hands as 
full as he wants in trying to deal with the energy crisis for all 
Americans. Because there is no doubt in my mind, if you want to pick 
one thing that is slowing down our economy, it is the tremendous 
increase in the cost of our energy. Access to those lands is very 
important.
  But also another point that I think was brought up during the 
hearings is that, for the first time, we heard the Secretary of Energy 
say that he is not afraid to talk to the Secretary of Agriculture, and 
neither one of them are afraid to talk to the Secretary of the Interior 
to solve common problems. That is very important in this town because 
in this town we spend more time solving turf wars that we do anything 
else. But this time it is going to take an administration of Department 
heads and Secretaries working together, knowing what one is doing and 
the policy they are putting forward, and knowing how we can complete a 
national policy to deal with an energy crisis; the ability to work 
together.

  So I am here today to offer Ms. Norton my wholehearted support in her 
nomination as Secretary of the Interior. She is the right person for 
this job. I cannot imagine how we would find anybody more qualified. 
She has a great mind and is very intelligent, understanding her job, 
which touches so many of our lives every day.
  I heard some of the folks on the other side of the aisle saying she 
is too far to the right to go into the Department of the Interior. But 
I will tell you, when you look at those statements, they are just 
partisan arguments, and that is all because there is no other substance 
there.
  Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the full committee and yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, under the previous agreement, the 
senior Senator from Virginia was to be recognized upon his return. I 
see the Senator from Virginia has returned to the floor.
  Might I ask, how much time might the Senator desire?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would think 10 minutes would be 
adequate.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Virginia and yield him 10 
minutes. And then after he speaks, I will yield to the Senator from 
Colorado who has been waiting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today with other colleagues to 
express my strong support for President Bush's nominee to be Secretary 
of the Interior, Gale Norton.
  I have had a brief opportunity to visit with this distinguished 
American, and I heartily endorse the President's nomination. She has 
the qualifications, in my judgment, to serve in this important post.
  As many of my colleagues have detailed, she is an effective 
litigator, with over 20 years of experience in environmental and 
natural resources law. Prior thereto, she was a law clerk to a judge. 
And I had the privilege in my lifetime to have that experience.
  Her professional experiences and successes as Colorado attorney 
general, I believe, have given her a solid foundation and, indeed, the 
temperament--and it requires temperament because there will be a lot of 
heated issues in the course of her duties that she will have to 
resolve--necessary to be an outstanding Secretary.
  She has served on, as we say, ``both sides of the fence''--in the 
Federal Government and State government. She is skilled in the law and 
knows that States can be effective partners in preserving our public 
lands and managing its valuable resources.
  From her testimony before the committee, I was compelled by her 
recognition that the primary responsibility of Secretary of the 
Interior is one of protecting and fostering our public lands, our 
natural resources, and the treasures that make up our national park and 
wildlife refuge system.
  Mr. President, I want to finish up my statement on a personal note. I 
have three wonderful children. All of them are very active in 
philanthropic activities to protect the very things that I have 
enumerated here: our natural resources, national parks, wildlife, and 
the like. Their philosophy extends a little further than their old 
man's philosophy on this. I tend to be a centrist, trying to strike a 
clean balance between the necessity for carefully expanding the 
protected areas of America, and husbanding of our resources, while at 
the same time giving the private sector and, indeed, the States the 
rights to which they are entitled.
  My children have all communicated with me within the past few days 
about this nomination. I have told them very clearly, I am going to 
support this nominee. Their request to me was this: Father, that's 
fine, but keep a watchful eye.
  So I made a commitment to my family that I shall keep a watchful eye. 
But I assured them that, in my judgment, this eminently qualified 
individual would pursue a balanced course of action between the many 
competing interests for the precious resources we have. And in the 
words of my children, once these resources are withdrawn, once they are 
developed, they are gone forever. And that is correct.
  The Commonwealth of Virginia is home to some of our Nation's greatest 
natural and historic resources--from the Shenandoah National Park, our 
Civil War battlefields throughout the region, to the wildlife refuges 
on the eastern shore. The 20 national parks in Virginia have the fifth 
highest visitor rate in the Nation. It surprises people when I make 
that statement. We are No. 5 in the nation and located here in the 
East. That is why I am the first eastern Senator to speak on behalf of 
this distinguished nominee. I feel very strongly about it.
  My State is very actively engaged with the national park system. In 
fact, I have just taken the initiative to create another wilderness 
area in my State. In my 23 years in the Senate, I have been involved 
with a number of these wilderness areas, and I shall continue to press 
for the establishment and the preservation of these national

[[Page S628]]

treasures. We cherish, as Virginians, these resources and welcome a 
strong partnership with the Department of the Interior. These sites 
provide an outdoor classroom to tell the story of the founding of our 
Nation and other significant events that have woven the fabric of our 
form of government and, indeed, of our great Nation.
  I am drawn to the nominee's comments regarding the importance of 
partnerships between the Federal, State and local government, and 
private organizations. We have such partnerships in Virginia, and they 
work well. Partnerships with the Park Service and local governments 
have been tremendously successful in preserving historic battlefields, 
particularly in the Shenandoah Valley. These partnerships ensure that 
significant historic landmarks can be preserved without the expense of 
Federal ownership.
  The amount of land of natural and historic valve that should be 
somehow preserved is enormous. The Federal taxpayer cannot begin to 
provide the funds necessary to purchase all this land. In Virginia, we 
have shown how a farmer can continue his or her operation and pass it 
down through successive generations of their families and yet preserve 
that farm, while allowing visitors to come and study where historic 
battles, in the Shenandoah Valley for instance, were fought. It makes 
little difference to that visitor whether he or she is standing on 
Federal land or land preserved by the family.
  I urge our new Secretary to explore further opportunities in this 
area of public/private partnerships.
  In addition to our historic battlefields, Virginia is blessed with 
critical habitat for migratory waterfowl in our coastal areas including 
the Eastern Shore. We are home to six major national wildlife refuges. 
These sites provide undisturbed lands for the American bald eagle, the 
peregrine falcon and hundreds of migratory ducks and songbirds.
  Throughout my Senate career I have been pleased to work with local 
governments and local citizen organizations to expand our national park 
and our wildlife refuge system in Virginia. Permanent preservation of 
these lands ensures that future generations will have a ``hands on'' 
experience and that our wildlife will be able to flourish.
  I fully endorse the nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary of 
Interior and I look forward to working with her to strengthen our 
national parks and wildlife refuges across this country.
  (The remarks of Mr. Warner pertaining to the introduction of S. 201 
and S. 202 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask that the Senator from Colorado 
be recognized at this time. He asked for 10 or 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Colorado is 
recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I thank the chairman for giving me an 
opportunity to respond.
  I rise to respond to the comments from my dear friend and colleague 
from Oregon and also reemphasize what my colleague from Idaho had 
talked about in regard to Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior.
  I agree with my colleague from Idaho that Gale Norton will be a 
listener. Even more than just listening, she is going to understand. 
The reason she is going to be able to understand is because she has a 
broad background of experience. She started out her career actually 
working here in Washington, DC. She worked in the Department of 
Agriculture. Then she went over to the Department of the Interior and 
worked there as associate solicitor. Then she went back to the State of 
Colorado and was elected attorney general of the State of Colorado. She 
has been able to see issues from the Federal perspective, and she 
understands the responsibility the Federal Government takes on many of 
these issues.
  She understands many of these issues from a State perspective because 
she has had to be a spokesman for the State of Colorado, the citizens 
of Colorado, as various issues concerning the environment have come 
forward. Not only that, she has also served in the private sector. So 
as an American or as a Coloradan, she has had to deal with various laws 
that have been passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and she 
has had to live with those laws.
  I have always believed that if you have walked in the shoes of 
somebody who has had to live with the laws of this country, you have a 
better, balanced understanding of what is needed.
  Gale Norton has had a good record on the environment. It started 
early on when she was associate solicitor with the Department of the 
Interior--and she mentioned this in her testimony before the 
committee--where she pointed to helping prevent the California condor 
from becoming extinct as one of her greatest accomplishments. That was 
part of her responsibilities as associate solicitor.
  She also worked in the State of Colorado to clean up a number of 
Superfund sites we have there. In Leadville, we had a Superfund site. 
She worked to clean that up. She worked hard to get started with 
cleanup of Rocky Flats, another Superfund site in Colorado. She worked 
hard to get things moving as far as the Rocky Mountain arsenal was 
concerned. She has a good record for cleaning up the environment.
  Her record has been misrepresented as far as the Summitville mine. I 
will take a few moments to talk about that because my colleague from 
Oregon mentioned that in his comments. The problem at the Summitville 
mine in Colorado--I might add, this has been a real catastrophe on the 
environment, and I have been very concerned about the fact that the 
cleanup of the Summitville mine has not been progressing along 
satisfactorily--started in the 1980s.
  At that time we had a Democrat Governor in the State of Colorado, and 
we had a Democrat who was attorney general for the State of Colorado 
when they first began to deal with the problem. Gale Norton, then, was 
elected as attorney general in the State of Colorado just as the 
problem of the Summitville mine began to bubble up in a public manner. 
Now, today, this Summitville mine problem is beginning to be resolved 
in a real, meaningful way. There has been a settlement, and the company 
has agreed to pay $30 million in cleanup of the site.
  Those of us who have lived in the State of Colorado understand the 
hard work she has done in trying to clean up the Summitville mine. It 
is not only myself, but the Denver Post, for example, has written an 
article in support of Gale Norton and characterized the Summitville 
mine issue as a false blame toward Gale Norton. I ask unanimous consent 
that that editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Denver Post, Jan. 11, 2001]

                       The Blame for Summitville

       Blame for the Summitville environmental fiasco oozes thick 
     and wide through Colorado state government. Yet critics are 
     using Summitville to singularly bash Gale Norton, the former 
     Colorado attorney general whom President-elect George W. Bush 
     nominated as U.S. interior secretary. Norton should not be 
     slammed for other politicians' mistakes.
       In fact, during her tenure as state AG, Norton struggled to 
     protect the public's interest at Summitville, despite 
     legislative mandates that ham-strung meaningful action.
       In the late 1980s, the Colorado Legislature gutted the 
     state agency responsible for supervising environmental 
     compliance at hard-rock mines, leaving far too few mine 
     inspectors in the field. So when the Summitville gold mine 
     installed the liner for its heap leach pond, state experts 
     didn't take a close look at the design and implementation. 
     State inspectors also weren't around to discover numerous 
     other environmental goofs and lawbreaking at the site. The 
     pond liner eventually failed, spewing mine poisons into the 
     head-waters of the Rio Grande, one of our region's most 
     important rivers. Only later did authorities discover the 
     other mining law violations, too.
       But Norton never was in charge of the state unit 
     responsible for the omissions.
       Meantine, state lawmakers had imposed a ridiculously short 
     time frame in which authorities could bring charges when mine 
     operators committed wrong-doing. In the Summitville case, the 
     statute would have hogtied any Colorado AG, even the most 
     radical environmentalist. So, although The Denver Post 
     editorially bemoaned the state's inability to act, we were 
     haranguing the foolishness of the Colorado Legislature, not 
     Norton.
       In fact, Norton barely had been in office a year when the 
     Summitville crisis broke in 1992. The fiasco's roots instead 
     had taken hold under the policies of a conservative 
     Republican legislature, and on the watch of a moderate 
     Democratic governor and attorney general, Roy Romer and Duane 
     Woodard.
       Moreover, Washington critics are linking Summitville to 
     Colorado's self-audit law,

[[Page S629]]

     which lets businesses review their own environmental 
     compliance without risking regulatory wrath. The state has 
     tangled with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over 
     the law. But the statute was enacted in 1994, two years after 
     the Summitville debacle.
       EPA's own Summitville record isn't spotless, as the feds 
     squandered enormous sums accomplishing very little.
       Summitville shamed Colorado. This newspaper, with its 
     active environmentalist agenda, repeatedly lambasted the 
     state-and EPA's handling of the matter.
       But far from causing the problem, Norton was among the 
     civil servants trying to fix the mess under nearly impossible 
     circumstances.

  Mr. ALLARD. This appeared in the Denver Post on January 11. The 
headline is ``The Blame for Summitville.'' It makes two cogent points 
that I want to bring to the attention of the Members of the Senate. One 
of the paragraphs says:

       In fact, Norton barely had been in office a year when the 
     Summitville crisis broke in 1992. The fiasco's roots instead 
     had taken hold under the policies of a conservative 
     Republican legislature, and on the watch of a moderate 
     Democratic Governor and attorney general, Roy Romer and Duane 
     Woodard.

  The article points out that ``EPA's own record isn't spotless, as the 
Feds squandered enormous sums accomplishing very little.''
  Gale Norton pursued this issue after getting into office. She reached 
in and tried to protect the assets of a company that was filing 
bankruptcy so as to get out of the responsibility of having to clean up 
that mine. She yanked them out of the bankruptcy proceedings and 
continued to hold them responsible.
  The individual who followed Gale Norton as attorney general for the 
State of Colorado is Ken Salazar. He is a Democrat. Ken Salazar made a 
public statement in defense of the work of Gale Norton as attorney 
general for the State of Colorado as it applied to the Summitville 
mine. He starts out his public statement by saying:

       I believe former Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton 
     knows the environmental issues of Colorado and the West, is 
     smart, and has a passion for public service. She should be 
     given a chance to serve as Secretary of the Interior.

  It goes on to say:

       In the past few days, former Attorney General Norton has 
     been unfairly criticized concerning two issues: Her support 
     for the environmental self-audit laws of Colorado, and her 
     role in the Summitville Mine environmental case in the 
     Alamosa River watershed in southern Colorado.

  I point out that Ken Salazar grew up in that area close to the 
Summitville mine. He is familiar with the area and also with the case 
because he had to follow up on the work that the attorney general, Gale 
Norton, had started, and now the present attorney general, Salazar, is 
wrapping that up. In his statement, he goes on:

       Concerning the Summitville mine matter, the State of 
     Colorado has been vigilant and aggressive in pursuing those 
     responsible for the release of pollution from the Summitville 
     Mine. Former Attorney General Gale Norton supported the 
     efforts to recover the proceeds from bankruptcy, and in 1996 
     she also joined with the United States of America in the 
     lawsuit to recover expenses and natural resource damages from 
     those involved in the Summitville mine.

  So it is definitely an unfair accusation, as viewed by many of us in 
Colorado, Democrats and Republicans.
  I also ask unanimous consent that the statement by Attorney General 
Salazar be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Statement of Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar concerning Gale 
            Norton's Nomination as Secretary of the Interior

       Denver.--I believe former Colorado Attorney General Gale 
     Norton knows the environmental issues of Colorado and the 
     West, is smart, and has a passion for public service. She 
     should be given a chance to serve as Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       I have worked with Gale Norton for more than a decade. In 
     her role as Colorado Attorney General, she represented me 
     while I served as Executive Director of the Colorado 
     Department of Natural Resources. Though I certainly do not 
     share all of former Attorney General Norton's views on the 
     environment and other matters, I respect her legal and policy 
     knowledge and constructive approach to difficult issues.
       In the past few days, former Attorney General Norton has 
     been unfairly criticized concerning two issues: (1) her 
     support for the environmental self-audit laws of Colorado; 
     and (2) her role in the Summitville Mine environmental case 
     in the Alamosa River watershed in southern Colorado.
       Gale Norton's position on Colorado's environmental self-
     audit law has enjoyed very significant bipartisan support 
     here in Colorado. The original self-audit bill had a 
     Democratic sponsor and was signed into law by a Democratic 
     governor. As a Democrat, I supported the environmental self-
     audit law because the law, when properly implemented, creates 
     incentives for businesses to protect the environment. I have 
     worked to resolve outstanding issues with the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and the Department of Justice on Colorado's 
     law, and on April 14, 2000 I issued a formal opinion that 
     sets forth the central legal principles of Colorado's 
     environmental self-audit law.
       Concerning the Summitville Mine matter, the State of 
     Colorado has been vigilant and aggressive in pursuing those 
     responsible for the releases of pollution from the 
     Summitville Mine. Former Attorney General Gale Norton 
     supported the efforts to recover the proceeds from bankruptcy 
     and in 1996, she also joined with the United States of 
     America in the lawsuit to recover expenses and natural 
     resource damages from those involved in the Summitville Mine.
       There are fair questions that should be asked in the course 
     of the Senate confirmation proceedings. These matters are 
     proper inquiries of any nominee for Secretary of the 
     Interior.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I wanted to take a few moments to 
respond to the comments and accusations leveled against Gale Norton 
because I really believe she has a deep concern about our environment. 
She comes from the State of Colorado. We call it colorful Colorado. She 
wants to keep Colorado that way, and certainly I think she will be very 
responsible. She will do a good job as Secretary of the Interior. She 
has a great background and the intellect to do the right thing for 
America.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I see no other Members seeking 
recognition at this time, although we have had an indication that one 
or two may come over. Senator Bingaman, who is the ranking member of 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I have agreed to share 
our time equally since we are both supporting the nominee, Gale Norton, 
for Secretary of the Interior. How much time remains total for either 
side, or both?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 9 remaining 
minutes, and the Senator from New Mexico has 43 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that Senator Bingaman has 
agreed that we will try to accommodate those coming over and let the 
time run out. It is our understanding that tomorrow the Senate will 
take up, at 2:45, three nominations and that we have 90 minutes, I 
believe; is that correct--110 minutes, rather.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have an extended statement, but I 
am sure the occupant of the Chair and others would be happy if I were a 
little briefer.
  Madam President, I think it is fair to say that we have had a pretty 
unanimous consensus here of those speaking on behalf of Gale Norton for 
Secretary of the Interior. We only have one Member who opposes her, and 
I suspect we will have others tomorrow, inasmuch as time will allow for 
additional Members to speak. I won't try to prejudge the level of 
support. But I think it is fair to say, as chairman of The Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, that we have had somewhat of a mandate 
within the committee makeup. We voted her out 18-2.
  As I indicated earlier in my remarks, Ms. Norton has answered some 
224 written questions, having sat through her 2 days of testimony. I 
found it rather humorous that, in spite of her willingness to answer 
the questions presented by the Members--as we all note the good work of 
our staff, and the staff to a large degree repeated many of those 
questions. Nevertheless, that is how it goes, and we all understand the 
procedure and the fact that the staff does keep busy supporting us.
  In any event, I think, to some extent, some of the characterizations 
of this particular nominee are what I object to. I think it is fair to 
say that it is not a partisan issue. There was a cartoon in New York 
Daily News depicting Norton as a flack for the child poisoning 
industry. In a parody of our President's campaign promise to leave no 
child behind, it puts a slogan in her mouth: Leave no child alive. I 
don't know. But

[[Page S630]]

I think many of us are of the opinion that the environmental groups 
that support this kind of--well, it is hard for me to describe words of 
that nature. But I think they have lost somewhat of their credibility 
with these over-the-top attacks. I think a question of courtesy, a 
question of what is decent, and what is over the line has happened 
here, and I think that is, indeed, unfortunate.

  If I were a member of some of these environmental groups, I would 
want to know who made the decision to spend thousands and in some cases 
millions of dollars on advertisements in major newspapers that make 
false, inaccurate, inappropriate, and downright discourteous statements 
about her record.
  It seems to me, as I have indicated, that when the facts aren't on 
your side, you attack the person. That is what has happened here.
  I was listening to the Sunday service at the little church I attend 
this Sunday. The priest made the comment: They can try to rub out the 
messenger, but they can't rub out the message.
  I thought of Gale Norton and her commitment to enforce the law. She 
gave her committee the assurance that she will enforce the law. To some 
extent, some of the criticism seems to cover her position on an issue 
that involves my State of Alaska, and that is the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. The criticism seems to be that somehow this area is in 
jeopardy by the Bush administration. And the experience we have had in 
the Arctic in drilling for oil and gas associated with Prudhoe Bay 
somehow has no parallel to the potential opening of this small area of 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Few people consider that the area itself is about 19 million acres--
about the size of the State of South Carolina. Even fewer recognize 
what has already taken place in that area. But out of that 19 million 
acres, 9 million acres has been set aside by Congress in a refuge in 
perpetuity. That means Congress isn't going to change it; that is it. 
And 8\1/2\ million acres have been set aside in wilderness in 
perpetuity. But Congress left 1\1/2\ million acres, called the 1002 
area, for a determination to be made at a future date whether it should 
be explored for oil and gas. The Secretary's position on this is she 
happens to favor the opening, if it can be done safely and in 
compatibility with the environment and the ecology. That is the 
position that is taken by our President, President Bush, and our Vice 
President.
  As a consequence, it should be pointed out that it is not her 
decision, nor will it be her decision as to whether or not this sliver 
of the Coastal Plain will be open. When I say ``sliver,'' I am 
referring to specifically the realization that there is only 1\1/2\ 
million acres in the 1002 area to be considered by Congress, and 
industry tells us that with their new technology and ice roads and the 
realization that there is only a short 60 miles of pipe that would have 
to be extended over to the existing infrastructure of the Trans-Alaska 
pipeline where the 800-mile pipeline has been for some 27 years, that 
the impact would be minimal.
  That doesn't mean there won't be an impact, but it would be minimal. 
But the footprint is what is significant. It is estimated to be about 
2,000 acres out of the million and half acres which is out of the 19 
million acres. That is the perspective that our friends in the 
environmental community fail to recognize. They fail to recognize what 
we have learned in Prudhoe Bay for 27 years.
  We have seen the habitat of the central Arctic herd during that 
timeframe, and those caribou increased dramatically from about 3,000 to 
4,000 to the numbers currently of about 26,000 to 27,000. They are 
protected. The mild activity associated with that oil field does not 
threaten either the caribou, their lifestyle, or their reproduction as 
evidenced by the fact that the herd has increased dramatically. To 
suggest somehow that this same situation can't occur in the 1002 area 
of ANWR flies in the face of realism.
  But it is appropriate that in the few minutes we have, since this has 
come up continually in her nomination, that some of the inaccuracies by 
some of the defenders of wildlife and others who are campaigning on 
this issue to generate membership and dollars--they are using fear 
tactics, they are using inaccuracies, and they are using 
irresponsibility. One of the statements that was made in the U.S. news 
wire of January 25 entitled ``Defenders of Wildlife Launch Campaign To 
Save The Arctic Refuge'' was ``We know Americans overwhelmingly favor 
protecting the Arctic range''. Of course. We all do. But they go 
further to suggest that the American public, as evidenced by public 
opinion polls, shows that two-thirds of Americans are against opening 
it. That is not related to any degree of accuracy.
  The recent polling by the Christian Science Monitor on the issue was 
about 58 in favor of opening it and about 34 favor closing it. The 
Chicago Tribune had a poll limited to the Chicago area, which was about 
the same--about 52 to 53 percent favor. So public opinion, I think, is 
obviously an important factor in determining the eventual outcome. But 
to suggest that public opinion opposes it is simply not true.
  Further, the statement is made by the U.S. news wire that only the 
remaining 5 percent of Alaska's North Slope is not already open to 
drilling. That is totally inaccurate, and not based on any fact. 
Factually, 14 percent of the 1,200-mile Coastal Plain is open. If you 
do not believe it, go to the Department of the Interior and try to get 
a lease there. Fourteen percent is open.
  Further, Madam President, as we look at inaccuracies, we find that we 
are going to have on the web site an innovative computer animation on 
the issue narrated by an actor to tell the story of the polar bears and 
the cubs driven from their dens by the oil well on the refuge--the now 
pristine Coastal Plain. Of course, there is no oil well on the area. 
There is one well that has been driven. Further, if they had any degree 
of accuracy, they would recognize that the Coastal Plain is not the 
home of the polar bear. The polar bears actually den out on the Arctic 
ice.
  Our information shows, scientists, and the State of Alaska, and other 
sources, that approximately 10 to 12 polar bears have been identified 
as denning on that Coastal Plain area of ANWR. They simply don't den 
there. So it is quite infrequent. Now there are polar bears that come 
into Point Barrow. There are polar bears that come into the Prudhoe Bay 
area. What they don't say is that the greatest benefactor of the polar 
bear is the non-natives. Non-natives cannot take them for trophy 
hunting. The law says that only the native people can take them for 
subsistence. If you want a polar bear, where do you go? Go to Canada.

  I might add, some people in the Canadian government are opposed to 
opening this area. It could be because of the competitive posture as a 
supplier of energy to the United States. They look upon us as a 
potential competitor. That is all right. But the polar bear issue, keep 
it defined where it belongs. In Canada you can go out and shoot one. In 
Russia you can shoot one, but you can't shoot one in Alaska. That has a 
lot to do with the longevity of the polar bear.
  We have a web site now, an innovative computer animation about the 
polar bear, but it doesn't tell the true story about the polar bear. It 
is going to suggest the polar bear abandon her cubs because of the oil 
activity. It is simply not true.
  Further, they say this is opening this area, sticking oil wells right 
smack in the biological heart of the wildest place left in America. 
They don't state that there is an Eskimo village there with 220 people 
living there. There are radar sites. I encourage every Member of the 
Senate who wants to voice an opinion on this to come to Alaska and take 
a look for themselves. Many Members have. We are extending an 
invitation at the end of March and early April to take Members up there 
so they can see for themselves. To suggest it is the biological heart 
of the wildest place left if America, I argue that point.
  They call it America's Serengeti. That is an understatement. It is an 
interesting, beautiful, harsh, rugged environment. It is winter 9 
months of the year. It is not a place that is warm, fuzzy and cuddly. 
It is home of the polar bear, wolves, musk ox, millions of migratory 
birds, caribou, and hundreds of other species. That is partially true. 
The one area that Congress set-aside is different. It is not the home 
of

[[Page S631]]

the wolves or the musk ox and the birds that come through into the 
wilderness and the refuge.
  They further say there would be immense spills. They go one step 
further and suggest the greasy oil slick surrounding the Galapagos is 
somehow connected to the danger and exposure to this area.
  It is paramount to recognize the connection between the nominee for 
the Secretary of the Interior and this particular issue. She will not 
be making the decision. She will simply be forwarding the facts to the 
Congress and to the administration surrounding whether or not it can be 
opened safely.
  I implore those following this debate to recognize one significant 
issue that concerns California today. If one will look at what has 
happened to California as a consequence of a decision made some time 
ago to depend on outside energy sources, outside the State of 
California, for their gas and for their electricity, and the 
consequences of what has happened. Twenty- five percent of the energy 
of California comes outside that State. There hasn't been one new 
generating plant built there of any consequence in the last decade. 
California environmentalists made decisions and those decisions have 
come back today. Those California environmentalists have to bear the 
responsibility for those decisions. They are pretty hard to find right 
now. You don't see them around saying, maybe we did make a mistake, 
maybe we should have encouraged an energy supply within the State of 
California. They were very instrumental in saying we will buy the 
energy from Washington State, we will buy it from British Columbia 
where they have a lot of hydropower. We won't develop it within our 
State.

  They are paying the price now. Their two major utilities are in 
bankruptcy. A bankruptcy judge may come in and say, all right, 
California consumer, this is what it will cost you for your energy. I 
am not prepared to go into this at this time but the Energy and Natural 
Resource Committee will be holding a hearing Wednesday and go into this 
matter at length.
  I draw the parallel. We know what happened in California today by 
depending on outside energy sources. The parallel is, this Nation 
today, the United States of America, is 56 percent dependent on 
imported oil. Where is it coming from? It is coming from Saudi Arabia, 
it is coming from Mexico, it is coming from Venezuela. Where else is it 
coming from? It is coming from Iraq, our old friend Saddam Hussein. We 
are importing 750,000 barrels a day of oil from Iraq. We fought a war 
over there in 1992. We lost 147 American lives. We had over 400 
wounded. How quickly we forget.
  What is Saddam Hussein doing? We know he is developing a missile 
capability. We know he is developing a biological capability. Who is it 
aimed at in the Middle East? Israel. Iraq is the greatest threat to the 
peace process in the Middle East--Saddam Hussein. What are we doing 
about it? We are turning around and buying more oil, importing it to 
the extent that we are 56 percent dependent today. The Department of 
Energy suggests by the year 2004 we will be 64 percent dependent.
  The parallel is there. California and their dependence on outside 
sources for their energy and the United States today dependent 56 
percent on oil.
  The energy bill we are proposing, we are committed to reduce our 
dependence to less than 50 percent by initiating exploration in the 
continental United States in the overthrust belt, Wyoming, Montana, New 
Mexico, Montana, and my State of Alaska, and part of that involves 
opening up the small area of the coastal plain, using science and 
technology, the winter roads, the icy roads, and the expense we have 
had for 30 years where there has never been a proven exposure to the 
caribou associated with exploration for oil and gas.
  So, let's remember this parallel. You depend on outsiders, you lose 
your leverage, and you pay the price. It happened in California. It can 
happen today. As far as I'm concerned, it is happening.
  Whether we want to reduce that risk associated with this issue which 
has become a part of the deliberation of Gale Norton is up to us. I 
think it is fair to say we can probably terminate the debate on the 
nomination.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today 
in supporting the president's nomination of Mrs. Gale Norton to be the 
next Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
  As the ranking minority member on the appropriations subcommittee 
which provides funding for the Interior department, I have a particular 
interest in this Cabinet position. I know that effectively managing 
this department--an organization of 69,000 employees and an $8.4 
billion budget--is not an easy task. The Interior Secretary is charged 
with overseeing the 379 parks of the National Park System, the 521 
refuges and the 66 national fish hatcheries of the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the 264 million acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management, and serving the needs of 1.4 million American Indians. 
Clearly, with a portfolio that broad, it is easy to see that the 
programs under the jurisdiction of the Secretary have a direct impact 
on every state in the union and nearly every American citizen.
  I am aware of the controversy that has surrounded this nomination. I 
know that there are those who do not see Mrs. Norton as an ally. There 
have been many accusations made concerning the nominee's public policy 
positions, and she has been, in my opinion, unfairly derided as a 
result of certain past working relationships. Despite this, I remain 
confident that, as Secretary, Gale Norton will be responsive to the 
concerns of the American people, particularly those concerns expressed 
by the Congress.
  I have personally talked with Mrs. Norton, and while I will not say 
that we had an in-depth discussion of all the issues which come before 
the Interior Department, I can say that, with respect to those subject 
matters we did discuss, I found Gale Norton to be well informed. More 
importantly, I found her willing to consider various points of view. 
Obviously, Senators cannot expect a Cabinet Secretary to agree with us 
on all things at all times. But what we should expect is to have an 
opportunity to present our views, or present the case of those we 
represent, and to have those views heard in a fair and unbiased manner. 
I believe Mrs. Norton will deliver quite well on that expectation.
  Madam President, I wish Gale Norton well as she embarks on a 
difficult assignment, and she will work with the Congress to ensure 
that we fulfill our land management and trust responsibilities to the 
American people in a fair, economical, and efficient manner.

                          ____________________